ECONFINA CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT AREA AND SAND HILL LAKES MITIGATION BANK: PHASE IB ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT OF HISTORIC HOMESTEAD AND MILL SITES AND PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE CARTER TRACT AND HOBB’S PASTURE ADDITION TRACT

Northwest Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 4430 Yarmouth Place Pensacola, Florida 32514

August 2006 ECONFINA CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT AREA

AND SAND HILL LAKES MITIGATION BANK:

PHASE IB ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT

OF HISTORIC HOMESTEAD AND MILL SITES

AND PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF

THE CARTER TRACT AND HOBB’S PASTURE ADDITION TRACT

by

Gregory A. Mikell, RPA Principal Investigator

and

Brian O. Shoemaker

Prepared for:

Northwest Florida Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333

Prepared by:

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 4430 Yarmouth Place Pensacola, Florida 32514

August 2006 This project has been financed in part with historic preservation grant assistance provided by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, administered through the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, assisted by the Historic Preservation Advisory Council. However, the contents and opinions of the Department of the Interior or the Florida Department of State, nor does the mentions of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the Florida Department of State. This program receives Federal assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facilities described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, Post Office Box 37127, Washington, DC 20012- 7127.

ii ABSTRACT

In late 2005 and early 2006, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., conducted an archaeological survey of the Carter Tract and the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract of the Northwest Florida Water Management District’s Econfina Creek Water Management Area (WMA). The survey of the District’s land holdings within and adjacent to the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts was designed to identify and record a large sample of sites and gather the data necessary to construct a predictive model and develop a plan for managing the District’s cultural resources. The survey included extensive background research, field survey, site evaluations, and predictive modeling. This project also included the search for and testing and evaluation of pioneer homestead and mill sites within and adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA. The project was funded by a historic preservation Grant-in-aid to the District (Grant #S0662) and matching funds from the Northwest Florida Water Management District.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract iii

List of Figures viii

List of Tables xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Environmental Setting 9 Geology 10 Hydrology 10 Soils 11 Climate 11 Flora and Fauna 11

Chapter 3: Archaeological and Historic Contexts for the Project Area 13 Archaeological Context 14 Paleoindian Stage 14 Transitional Paleoindian-Early Archaic Period 15 Archaic Stage 15 Early Archaic Period 15 Middle Archaic Period 16 Late Archaic Period 16 Gulf Formational Stage 17 Woodland Stage 17 Deptford 17 Santa Rosa/Swift Creek 18 Weeden Island 19 Mississippian Stage 20 Early/Middle and Late/Protohistoric Periods 20 Historic Context 21 Colonial Periods 22 Aboriginal Cultures of the Colonial Periods 22 First Spanish Period 23 British Period and the Second Spanish Period 23 American Periods 24 Early American Period 24 Civil War Period 29 Late Nineteenth-Early Twentieth Century and Mid-Twentieth Century Periods 31

Chapter 4: Previous Archaeological Investigations 35 Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Region 35 Previous Surveys Associated with the Econfina Creek WMA 36

Chapter 5: Methodology 39 Research Design 39

iv Site Recording Methods 39 Site Evaluation Methods 40 Field Methods 41 Reconnaissance Survey 42 Site Testing and Evaluation 42 Laboratory Methods 44 Classification 44 Chipped-Stone Debitage 44 Prehistoric Ceramics 45 Architectural Materials 46 Kitchen Glass 47 Historic Ceramics 47 Metal 49 Bone, Shell, and Plant Remains 50 Other 50 Laboratory Documentation 50 Curation 50 Procedures to Deal with Unexpected Discoveries 51

Chapter 6: Results of Investigations 53 Homestead and Mill Sites Tested 53 8BY989 – The Last Gainer Homestead 53 Shovel Test Excavation 55 Test Unit Excavation 58 Test Unit 1 58 Test Unit 2 60 Test Unit 3 62 Site Evaluation 63 8WS514 – The William Gainer and Eugenia O. Gainer Homestead 67 Shovel Test Excavation 68 Test Unit Excavation 81 Test Unit 1 81 Test Unit 2 83 Test Unit 3 85 Test Unit 4 86 Test Unit 5 87 Test Unit 6 88 Site Evaluation 89 8WS539 – Porter Lake 3 92 Shovel Test Excavation 93 Site Evaluation 94 8WS581 – The Adams Mill and Homestead Site 95 Shovel Test Excavation 97 Test Unit Excavation 107 Test Unit 1 107 Test Unit 2 109 Test Unit 3 110 Test Unit 4 111 Site Evaluation 112 Carter Tract Survey 117 Introduction 117

v Site Descriptions 119 8WS468 119 8WS469 120 8WS470 125 8WS471 126 8WS472 130 8WS473 131 8WS1006 133 8WS1007 135 8WS1008 136 8WS1009 137 8WS1010 138 8WS1011 139 8WS1012 140 8WS1013 141 8WS1014 142 8WS1015 144 8WS1016 145 8WS1017 146 8WS1018 147 8WS1019 149 8WS1020 151 8WS1021 152 8WS1022 153 8WS1023 154 8WS1024 156 8WS1025 159 8WS1026 160 8WS1027 161 8WS1028 162 8WS1029 163 8WS1030 165 8WS1031 167 Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract Survey 168 Introduction 168 Site Descriptions 169 8BY1308 169 8BY1309 173 8BY1310 174 8BY1311 176 8BY1312 178 8BY1313 179 8BY1314 181 8BY1315 182 8BY1316 184 Sites Recorded Outside of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tracts 185 Introduction 185 Site Descriptions 186 8BY1330 186 8WS474 189

vi Chapter 7: Predictive Model for Archaeological Site Locations in the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tracts 193 Introduction 193 Site Data Analysis 193 Topographic Setting 193 Soils and Soil Drainage Characteristics 194 Water Source 194 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas/HPAs 195 Model Summary and Utility 196

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions Introduction 199 The Archaeological Sites 199 The Predictive Model 201 The Econfina Settlement Historic District Concept 202 Management Recommendations 205

References Cited 207

Appendix: Florida Master Site File Forms

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the District's Econfina Creek WMA land holdings (outlined in red) in Bay, Washington, and Jackson counties, Florida. 4 Figure 2. Map of a portion of the Econfina Creek WMA, showing the locations of archaeologically tested and evaluated sites 8BY989, 8WS514, 8WS539, and 8WS581. 5 Figure 3. Map of the two newly recorded archaeological sites (8BY1330 and 8WS474) outside of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts. 6 Figure 4. Map showing the location of the Carter Tract and the 32 sites (8WS468-473 and 8WS1006-1031) recorded within the tract. 7 Figure 5. Map showing the location of the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract and the nine sites (8BY1308-1316) recorded within and near the tract. 8 Figure 6. Map of the physiographic provinces in Florida's panhandle (from Schmidt 1997:7). 9 Figure 7. 8BY989 site map. 54 Figure 8. Detail of 8BY989 site map showing the house location area. 59 Figure 9. Test Unit 1 south wall profile drawing. 60 Figure 10. Test Unit 1 south wall profile photograph. 60 Figure 11. Test Unit 2 west wall profile drawing. 61 Figure 12. Test Unit 2 west wall profile photograph. 61 Figure 13. Test Unit 3 south wall profile drawing. 62 Figure 14. Test Unit 3 south wall profile photograph. 62 Figure 15. Photograph taken during the 1951 Gainer Family Reunion at 8BY989. 64 Figure 16. Detail from the 1944 USGS Bennett quadrangle showing the location of 8BY989. 65 Figure 17. Detail from a 1949 aerial photograph showing the 8BY989 site location. 65 Figure 18. Photograph of Walter Raleigh Gainer, circa 1915. 66 Figure 19. Drawing of the Gainer home at 8BY989. 66 Figure 20. 8WS514 site map. 70 Figure 21. Selected artifacts recovered from 8WS514. 80 Figure 22. Iron equipment hook and chain recovered from TU 2, 8WS514. 81 Figure 23. Test Unit 1 north wall profile drawing. 82 Figure 24. Test Unit 1 north and west wall profile photograph. 83 Figure 25. Test Unit 2 west wall profile drawing. 84 Figure 26. Test Unit 2 west wall photograph. 84 Figure 27. Test Unit 3 south and west wall profile drawing. 85 Figure 28. Test Unit 3 south and west wall profile photograph. 86 Figure 29. Test Unit 4 west wall profile drawing. 87 Figure 30. Test Unit 4 west wall profile photograph. 87 Figure 31. Test Unit 5 east wall profile drawing. 88 Figure 32. Test Unit 5 east wall profile photograph. 88 Figure 33. Test Unit 6 west wall profile drawing. 89 Figure 34. Test Unit 6 west wall profile photograph. 89 Figure 35. Photograph of 8WS539 shoreline on Porter Lake; view to the west from the vicinity of Shovel Test 2. 92 Figure 36. 8WS539 site map. 94 Figure 37. Photograph of mill structural remains at 8WS581; view to the north. 96

viii Figure 38. Photograph of mill structural remains at 8WS581; view to the east. 96 Figure 39. Plan map of exposed and estimated Adam's Mill remains. 97 Figure 40. Topographic sketch map of 8WS581 showing mill and homestead locations. 99 Figure 41. Dark olive green bottle fragments recovered from 8WS581. 106 Figure 42. Selected ceramics recovered from 8WS581. 106 Figure 43. Selected artifacts recovered from 8WS581. 108 Figure 44. Test Unit 1 west wall profile drawing. 109 Figure 45. Test Unit 1 west wall profile photograph. 109 Figure 46. Test Unit 2 south wall profile drawing. 110 Figure 47. Test Unit 2 south wall profile photograph. 110 Figure 48. Test Unit 3 east wall profile drawing. 111 Figure 49. Test Unit 3 east wall profile photograph. 111 Figure 50. Test Unit 4 west wall profile drawing. 112 Figure 51. Test Unit 4 west wall profile photograph. 112 Figure 52. Illustration of a tub wheel mill mechanism. 114 Figure 53. Illustration of the interior components of a water-powered grist mill. 115 Figure 54. Econfina Settlement area portion of the 1837-1838 Apalachicola to Marianna Road showing the location of Blue Springs and 8WS581. 116 Figure 55. Photograph of turpentine being collected from pine trees in northwest Florida (from Mikell et al. 2003:70). 118 Figure 56. Photograph of the original recorded location of 8WS468, view to the southeast toward Pine Log Creek. 119 Figure 57. Photograph of the north side of 8WS469, view to northwest. 122 Figure 58. Photograph of the north side of 8WS469, view to southwest from the floodplain north of the dam. 122 Figure 59. Photograph of the north dam wall of 8WS469 and Bridge 4 platform, view to southeast from the northwest edge of the dam structure. 123 Figure 60. Photograph of Fitzhugh Carter during construction of a water control station, possibly at Dykes Mill Pond. 123 Figure 61. Photograph of the water tank located northwest of 8WS469, view to the northeast. 124 Figure 62. Photograph of the well head pump located northwest of 8WS469, view to the north. 124 Figure 63. Photograph of the 8WS470a site area, view to the northwest toward the Deep Edge Pond/Greenhead Branch confluence area. 126 Figure 64. Photograph of 8WS471; view to the northwest looking at the southeast corner of the structure and small addition or detached kitchen. 127 Figure 65. Photograph of 8WS471; view to the east looking at west side of the structure. 128 Figure 66. Photograph of 8WS471; view of the interior of the structure from a window near the southwest corner. 129 Figure 67. Detail from the 1950 Vernon, FL USGS quadrangle depicting the locations of the Greenhead School and the Dykes homestead to the south. 129 Figure 68. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS471 and 8WS1029 site areas. 130 Figure 69. Photograph of the Dykes Canal water control gate on the north end of Dykes Mill Pond. View is to the west-southwest. 131 Figure 70. Photograph of the 8WS473 site area, view to the east. 132 Figure 71. Photograph of the 8WS1006 site area, view to the west-northwest 134

ix Figure 72. Photograph of the 8WS1007 site area, view to the east. 135 Figure 73. Photograph of the 8WS1008 site area, view to the west-southwest. 136 Figure 74. Photograph of the 8WS1009 site area, view to the east. 137 Figure 75. Photograph of the 8WS1010 site area, view to the west from site 8WS1009. 138 Figure 76. Photograph of the 8WS1011 site area, view to the northwest toward Pine Log Creek. 139 Figure 77. Photograph of the 8WS1012 site area, view to the southeast. 140 Figure 78. Photograph of the 8WS1013 site area, view to the north toward Pine Log Creek. 142 Figure 79. Photograph of the 8WS1014 site area, view to the northeast. 143 Figure 80. Photograph of the 8WS1015 site area, view to the west toward Pine Log Creek. 144 Figure 81. Photograph of the 8WS1016 site area, view to the south. 145 Figure 82. Photograph of the 8WS1017 site area, view to the east. 146 Figure 83. Detail from the 1950 USGS Vernon, FL quadrangle depicting the location of site 8WS1018 and cleared areas around the homestead site. 147 Figure 84. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS1018 site area. Note the cleared land surrounding homestead area. 148 Figure 85. Photograph of the 8WS1018 site area, view to the south-southeast toward Pine Log Creek. 149 Figure 86. Photograph of the 8WS1019 site area, view to the northwest. 150 Figure 87. Photograph of the 8WS1020 site area, view to the south across site toward Dykes Canal and 8WS1021. 152 Figure 88. Photograph of the 8WS1021 site area, view to the north. 153 Figure 89. Photograph of the 8WS1022 site area, view to the east and upslope. 154 Figure 90. Photograph of the 8WS1023 site area, view to the east-northeast. 155 Figure 91. Detail from the 1950 USGS Vernon, Florida quadrangle show the location of site 8WS1024. 158 Figure 92. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS1024 site area. 158 Figure 93. Photograph of the 8WS1025 site area, view to the northeast. 159 Figure 94. Photograph of the 8WS1026 site area, view to the north. 160 Figure 95. Photograph of the 8WS1027 site area, view to the southeast toward southern from main site area. 161 Figure 96. 8WS1028 site map. 162 Figure 97. Photograph of the portable sawmill platform at 8WS1028 and general site area, view to the northwest. 163 Figure 98. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS471 and 8WS1029 site area. 164 Figure 99. Photograph of the 8WS1030 canal on the west side of Dykes Mill Pond. 166 Figure 100. Example of water control device remnants along carter's Canal on the west site of Dykes Mill Pond. 166 Figure 101. Example of water control device remnants along carter's Canal on the west site of Dykes Mill Pond. 167 Figure 102. Photograph of the 8WS1031 water control gate remnants at Black Pond. 168 Figure 103. Photograph of typical vegetation within the Hobb's Pasture Addition Tract, view to the south-southwest at site 8BY1315. 169 Figure 104. Photograph of the southern tip of site 8BY1308, view to the southeast. 170

x Figure 105. 8BY1308 site map. 171 Figure 106. 8BY1309 site map. 174 Figure 107. 8BY1310 site map. 175 Figure 108. Photograph of the 8BY1311 site area south of power line ROW, view to north toward ROW. 177 Figure 109. Photograph of the earthworks at 8BY1312, view to the northwest. 179 Figure 110. 8BY1313 site map. 180 Figure 111. 8BY1314 site map. 182 Figure 112. 8BY1315 site map. 183 Figure 113. 8BY1316 site map. 185 Figure 114. Photograph of William A. and Sarah A. Gainer taken shortly before William A. Gainer's death in 1912. 187 Figure 115. 8BY1330 site map. 188 Figure 116. Detail from 1944 USGS Bennett quadrangle showing 8BY1330 and 8WS474 site locations. 188 Figure 117. 8WS474 site map. 190 Figure 118. Map of the proposed Econfina Settlement Historic District Area depicting all pre-1900 and post-1900 Gainer Land Patents based on BLM GLO records. 203

xi LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Prehistoric and historic cultural sequence for the St. Andrews Bay Area and Northwest Florida in general 13 Table 2. Summary of Econfina Settlement area land patents issued Before the Civil War. 28 Table 3. Summary of Gainer land patents issued after the Civil War and Reconstruction. 32 Table 4. Previous surveys in proximity to the Carter Tract and Hobb’s Pasture Addition. 36 Table 5. Previously recorded sites located in proximity to the Hobb’s Addition. 36 Table 6. Previously recorded Cultural Resources located in proximity To the Carter Tract. 37 Table 7. Artifacts recovered from 8BY989 during Phase Ib investigations, by provenience. 55 Table 8. Artifacts recovered from 8WS514 during Phase Ib investigations, by provenience. 71 Table 9. Artifacts recovered from 8WS539 during Phase Ib investigations, by provenience. 93 Table 10. Artifacts recovered from 8WS581 during Phase Ib investigations, by provenience. 100 Table 11. Artifacts recovered from 8WS468, by provenience. 120 Table 12. Artifacts recovered from 8WS470a, by provenience. 126 Table 13. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1006-8WS1011, by provenience. 134 Table 14. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1012-8WS1017, by provenience. 141 Table 15. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1018, by provenience. 149 Table 16. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1019-8WS1023, by provenience. 151 Table 17. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1024-8WS1029, by provenience. 157 Table 18. Artifacts recovered from 8BY1308, by provenience. 171 Table 19. Artifacts recovered from 8BY1309, by provenience. 173 Table 20. Artifacts recovered from 8BY1310, by provenience. 176 Table 21. Artifacts recovered from 8BY1311 and 8BY1313, by provenience. 177 Table 22. Artifacts recovered from 8BY1314-8BY1316, by provenience. 183 Table 23. Artifacts recovered from 8BY1330, by provenience. 189 Table 24. Artifacts recovered from 8WS474, by provenience. 191 Table 25. Summary of sites recorded within the Carter Tract. 200 Table 26. Summary of sites recorded within and adjacent to the Hobb’s Pasture Addition during the current survey. 201 Table 27. Newly recorded sites identified by local informants. 201 Table 28. Key to Figure 118. 204

xii

This page intentionally left blank.

xiii CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Aside from Pensacola and the Apalachicola Valley, much of the western Panhandle region was not settled by Europeans or Americans until the mid- to late- nineteenth century. Econfina Creek was one of a few areas between Pensacola and Apalachicola that were focal points for rural homesteads and early agricultural development by the 1820s. Tens of thousands of people each year use the Northwest Florida Water Management District’s (District) Econfina Creek Water Management Area (WMA) for recreational purposes, yet few visitors know of or understand the area’s history.

Previously, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI), conducted a reconnaissance- level archaeological and historic sites sample survey of the Northwest Florida Water Management District’s land in the Econfina Creek Water Management Area (Figure 1) during the spring and early summer of 2000 (Mikell 2001a). The archaeological survey and development of the cultural resources management plan completed as part of that project included extensive background research, archaeological sample survey, testing and development of existing predictive models for archaeological site locations, preparation of an archaeological sensitivity map, and a project narrative. One hundred twenty-one previously unrecorded archaeological sites, one archaeological occurrence consisting of an isolated prehistoric projectile point, and three historic cemeteries were identified and recorded during the 2000 PCI survey (Mikell 2001a). Three previously recorded sites were revisited. While not focused on historic sites, the 2000 survey helped bring to light the fact that a set of rich historic archaeological resources exists in the area.

The current project, funded in part by a Historic Preservation Grant-in-Aid to the District from the Florida Department of State (Grant #S0662), serves as a follow-up to the 2000 survey of the Econfina Creek WMA. The current project is based on the premise that the previous Econfina Creek WMA archaeological survey and historic documentation demonstrated that a wealth of information exists that can be used to bring a sense of the area’s history to the public. By conducting archaeological and historical assessment of historic homestead and mill sites within and adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA, data was collected to aid in the formulation and future completion of several District goals:

• establishment of a proposed interpretive display center at the last Gainer Homestead (8WL989), which will document and outline the initial pioneering Early American period settlement of the Econfina Creek Valley during the early nineteenth century;

• aid in attempting to acquire a conservation easement that will permanently protect the reported site of the first Gainer homestead and family cemetery (8WS514 and 8WS515), established in the 1820s;

1

• provide the data and information necessary to clearly identify and evaluate sites on the District’s recently acquired Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts for land management considerations;

• gather data concerning Early American period settlement;

• attempt to identify Early American period homestead and mill sites believed to be located on or adjacent to District property;

• place the sites within the context of historic documentation and Gainer family historical information for the purposes of establishing a proposed public historical/cultural/environmental resources interpretive center, and

• present the concept of the Econfina Settlement Area Multiple Historic Property submission, which would consist of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century homesteads and rural industrial sites associated with the Econfina Settlement area.

Data was collected from 8BY989, 8WS514, 8WS539, and 8WS581, through archaeological testing and evaluation (Figure 2). Also, two reported locations of Gainer family homesteads were investigated and recorded as sites 8BY1330 and 8WS474 (Figure 3). In addition, the recently acquired Carter Tract in Washington County (Figure 4) and Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract in Bay County (Figure 5) within the Econfina Creek WMA were archaeologically surveyed. Forty-one sites were documented in the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts during this survey; of these, 32 (8WS468-473 and 8WS1006-1031) were located in the Carter Tract (see Figure 4) and nine (8BY1308- 1316) were located in the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract (see Figure 5). Although it was initially proposed to conduct Phase II testing and evaluation at site 8BY988 as part of the current project, the site was not tested due to private property accessibility issues and the apparent integrity of the historic component (late nineteenth-to-early-twentieth-century Gainer homestead).

Historic background data and information pertinent to the sites and the local area was compiled. The current work was completed by PCI’s professional staff with collaborative aid from District personnel and volunteers. This report details the archaeological investigations and findings. Following this introduction are summaries of the environmental and cultural settings, descriptions of the project research design and methodology, the results of the background research and archaeological field investigations, definitions of models for archaeological site locations, and recommendations for managing archaeological resources within the Econfina Creek WMA.

The project area is located in northern Bay and southern Washington counties in Florida, along Econfina Creek and among the numerous lakes, ponds, and sinks located west and northwest of Econfina Creek (see Figures 1 and 2). Prior to the 2000 survey (Mikell 2001a), only a single known archaeological site (8BY172) had been recorded on

2 District land within the Econfina Creek WMA. The 2000 survey added 125 sites to the inventory and the current project has added another 41 sites. As was the case during the initial survey of the Econfina Creek WMA, it was expected that the current archaeological survey of high probability areas (HPAs) would identify numerous previously unrecorded sites, test existing models for site locations, and fill in a gap in the archaeological record for the area.

3

Figure 1. Map of the District’s Econfina Creek WMA land holdings (outlined in red) in Bay, Washington, and Jackson counties, Florida.

4

Figure 2. Map of a portion of the Econfina Creek WMA, showing the locations of archaeologically tested and evaluated sites 8BY989, 8WS514, 8WS539, and 8WS581 (also showing site 8BY988, not tested as part of this survey). Shown on the Gap Lake, Fla. 1994 (north) and Bennett, Fla. 1982 (south) USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles.

5

Figure 3. Map of the two newly recorded archaeological sites (8BY1330 and 8WS474) outside of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts.

6

Figure 4. Map showing the location of the Carter Tract and the 32 sites (8WS468-473 and 8WS1006-1031) recorded within the tract.

7

Figure 5. Map showing the location of the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract and the nine sites (8BY1308-1316) recorded within and near the tract.

8 CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The District’s Econfina Creek WMA land holdings are located between Ranges 11 and 14 West within Townships 1 South and 1 and 2 North, along and to the west of Econfina Creek (see Figure 1). The Carter Tract is the westernmost section of the Econfina Creek WMA (see Figure 4) located west of State Road (SR) 77, while the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract (see Figure 5) is the southernmost portion of the Econfina Creek WMA located south of Bay County Road (CR) 388. The Carter Tract covers approximately 2,155 acres, and the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract covers 1,034 acres.

Physiographically, the project region lies within the Coastal Plain province, which is a broad belt of primarily unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay. In the , the Coastal Plain physiographic province is divided into two divisions, the Western Highlands and the Gulf Coastal Lowlands (Figure 6). The division results from past events where ancient seas eroded the Citronelle Highlands (Western Highlands) and produced the Coastal Plain. The Western Highlands slope subtly to the south to the Gulf Coastal Lowlands, which are generally less than 50 to 100 feet (ft.) above mean sea level (amsl). The Econfina Creek drainage cuts through the eastern portion of the Western Highlands into the Gulf Coast Lowlands. The break between Citronelle Highlands and the Gulf Coastal Lowlands, as subtle as it may seem, is quite obvious within the Econfina Creek WMA south of the Bay-Washington County line where the sand hills and Karst topography giver way to flatter, less well-drained land north of the St. Andrew Bay system. Econfina Creek drains into the St. Andrew Bay system via North Bay and what is now Deer Point Lake.

Figure 6. Map of the physiographic provinces in Florida’s panhandle (from Schmidt 1997:7).

9 During the Pleistocene (up to one million years before present) a series of glacial and interglacial climatic episodes occurred, causing substantial sea level fluctuations. Glacial periods brought about substantial lowering of sea levels, as glaciers encompassed seawater. During glacial periods sea levels fell as much as 100 to 200 meters (300 to 600 ft.), resulting in increased stream velocity, erosion of stream valleys, and deposition of sediments. Rapid rises in sea level were associated with interglacial periods and resulted in flooding of stream valleys and bays, greatly reducing stream velocity and filling valleys with sediments of the Citronelle Formation. Citronelle Formation sediments, which blanket the region, have continually eroded since their deposition during the Plio- Pleistocene epoch approximately 1.2 million years ago (Puri and Vernon 1964). Drifting sediments in the shallow waters of the also regularly formed barrier islands during the Pleistocene interglacial periods. Each succeeding interglacial period resulted in relatively lower sea level where previous peninsulas and barrier islands became incorporated into the mainland and former sounds and bays became filled with sediments. A series of marine terraces also formed as sea levels subsided.

The project area primarily encompasses a series of dissected limestone-based Pleistocene terrace formations distinguished by elevation and descending from north to south. The Hazelhurst Terrace assumes an elevation of 215 to 300 ft. amsl, and along with the Coharie Terrace (120 to 215 ft. amsl) encompasses the majority of the Econfina Creek WMA. The Sunderland Terrace (also known as the Okefenokee Terrace) is 100 to 170 ft. amsl in elevation, while the Wicomico and Penholoway terraces assume elevations between 70 to 100 and 42 to 70 ft. amsl, respectively. Within the Econfina Creek WMA, elevation does not generally exceed 200 to 250 ft. amsl and wetlands generally occur at 100 ft. amsl and less.

GEOLOGY

Waggoner (1975:6) characterizes the region as “…a basically parallel series of cuestas forming a belted coastal plain. The belting resulted from the differential erosion of parallel strata of different materials with differing resistance. Cuestas have developed on the resistant strata, while the inner lowland strata have undergone intensive erosion and lowlands have resulted. The outcome is an undulating surface.” More specific to the project area, the coastal plain is described as a “terraced Coastal Lowland” (Duffee et al. 1984:2) made up of unconsolidated sands and gravels eroded from terraces and plateaus at higher elevations (Schmidt and Clark 1980).

HYDROLOGY

The hydrology of the study area is characterized by somewhat sluggish, free flowing dendritic drainage systems (Duffee et al. 1984; USDA n.d.), but the gradient of portions of upper Econfina Creek make it one of the fastest flowing second-order streams in northwest Florida. Third and fourth order drainage systems in the area generally flow into the Econfina, which runs to the southwest from its headwaters near Compass Lake in

10 southern Jackson County before it turns in a southerly direction, eventually draining into Deer Point Lake and North Bay. North Bay is a major arm of St. Andrew Bay, which opens to the Gulf of Mexico south-southwest of Panama City. In the Carter Tract, Pine Log Creek and Greenhead Branch are quite sluggish. Pine Log Creek winds its way from northwest of Greenhead though numerous lakes and sinks to the southwest and drains into the south of Ebro.

SOILS

The deep sandy upland soils within the Econfina Creek WMA are predominantly classified as Lakeland-Eustis and Blanton-Kiej-Plummer association soils (Washington County) and Lakeland-Foxworth-Centenary association soils (Bay and Jackson County) and Lakeland-Troup association (Santa Rosa County). Pamlico-Rutlege-Dorovan association soils dominate basin land and wetlands along the Econfina and sloughs extending between the numerous lakes, ponds, and sinks situated west of the creek (Duffee et al. 1984; USDA n.d.). The Econfina Creek WMA upland soils are characterized by well drained to excessively drained sandy soils located on upland ridge crests and side slopes. These upland soils are generally not well suited for cultivation because of their sandy nature, but make productive pasture and timberland. The Pamlico- Rutlege-Dorovan association is characterized by somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained, sandy and loamy soils found on level to gently sloping topographic features subject to flooding, larger swamp environments, and along alluvial floodplains. These basin land soils are not good agricultural soils, but are well suited to pasture and for timber production.

CLIMATE

The climate of Bay and Washington counties has been described as moderate. Summers tend to be long, warm, and humid, while winters are short and mild to cool. Temperatures are moderated by the Gulf of Mexico. Average temperatures in the summer are approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (27 degrees Celsius [C]), and those in the winter are approximately 56 degrees F (13 degrees C). Total annual precipitation averages 60 inches (152 cm), with 43 percent of this falling during a rainy season from early December to late April. Destructive hurricanes and tropical storms occur occasionally in the area (Duffee et al. 1984). The climate experienced in the historic past throughout the Florida panhandle would have been very similar to the modern climate (Miller 1998).

FLORA AND FAUNA

Several vegetation communities have been defined within the survey area (Hardin 1990; NWFWMD Satellite Imagery 1998; Schmidt 1978). Among these communities are three major classifications: 1) upland hardwood hammocks and forests, xeric sand hill

11 vegetation community including scrub oak and longleaf pines, and pine forests, 2) floodplain cypress, bay, magnolia, and hardwood communities, and 3) poorly drained basin lands containing cypress sloughs, extensive stands of titi and bay, and areas of hardwoods. Upland vegetation primarily consists of live oak, water oak, red oak, laurel oak, turkey oak, bluejack oak, and post oak, hickory, various species of pine, including longleaf, loblolly, and slash pine, along with red cedar, holly, wax myrtle, dogwood, sawpalmetto, gallberry, spruce pine, wiregrass, and various other shrubs, vines, and grasses as understory. Floodplain and wetlands vegetation includes primarily stands of titi, bald cypress, cyrilla, bay, river birch, swamp tupelo, red cedar, blackgum, sweetgum, loblolly and slash pine, red maple, American elm, willow, box elder, sycamore, ash, beech, live oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak, and laurel oak. Extensive upland areas within and adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA have been clear-cut previously and planted in sand and slash pine by St. Joseph Paper Company and other private landowners.

The Econfina Creek WMA contains a diverse set of microenvironments, and the area supports a wide variety of wildlife (NWFWMD 1997). The Econfina, as well as nearby lakes, ponds, sinks, and swamps, supports a variety of freshwater fish, turtles, alligators, frogs, and snakes, as well as several species of waterfowl. The marshes, swamps, and uplands associated with the Econfina Creek WMA also support a variety of small and medium-sized mammals, deer, Florida black bear, and a wide range of permanent and migratory birds.

In terms of human settlement and subsistence, the Econfina Creek WMA and surrounding areas provide an ideal environment. The upland, floodplain, and estuarine habitats contain a rich and varied resource base. Resources include a wide variety of plants and animals that traditionally have been useful to mankind. Potable water is widely available from the many springheads, low order streams, and Econfina Creek. Terrace edges, floodplain knolls, ridges and ridge slopes provide moderately well drained to excessively drained topographic settings traditionally utilized for settlement. In the early nineteenth century, John Lee Williams (1837:129) described the Econfina:

The limestone lands on this stream are very fertile, producing in a natural state, the finest groves of white oak in Florida: there is also a large quantity of wild cherry and red cedar of superior quality. All the productions of this country are raised in abundance here. Numerous springs of fine water are found convenient to every farm, and the county [Washington] is as healthy as it is fertile.

12 CHAPTER 3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC CONTEXTS FOR THE PROJECT AREA

The St. Andrew Bay area has a rich and varied cultural history. Settlement and use of the St. Andrew Bay and Econfina Creek areas began thousands of years ago and continues today. Initially, small prehistoric populations settled on and around the bay, but, with time, population densities grew. This is reflected by an increasing number of archaeological sites through time. The same is true of the historic period, as the St. Andrew Bay area was a rural coastal area until the late 1800s; however, the area has experienced extensive growth over the past 100 years, as the Bay County area currently is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. An overview of the prehistoric and historic contexts of northwest Florida and the St. Andrew Bay area culture history follows.

The cultural overview is drawn both from general sources such as Willey (1949), Milanich (1994), and Bense (1994) and from pertinent specific references such as Swindell et al. (1979), Knudsen (1979), Mikell et al. (1989), and Phillips (1995). Table 1 summarizes the prehistoric and historic chronology of the St. Andrew Bay area.

Table 1. Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Sequence for the Project Area and Northwest Florida in General.

Stage Period General Dates Culture 12,000-8500 B.C. Unnamed Paleoindian Transitional 8500-8000 B.C. Dalton Early 8000-5000 B.C. Kirk/Bolen Archaic Middle 5000-3000 B.C. Unnamed Late 3000-1000 B.C. Unnamed Gulf Middle - Late 1000-500 B.C. Elliot’s Point-Norwood Formational Early 500 B.C.-A.D. 300 Deptford Woodland Middle A.D. 300-450 Santa Rosa/Swift Creek Late A.D. 450-1000 Weeden Island Fort Walton: Little’s Bayou and Early - Middle A.D. 1000-1500 Indian Bayou phases Mississippian Pensacola: Bottle Creek phase Fort Walton: Fourmile Pt. phase Late/Protohistoric A.D. 1500-1700 Pensacola: Bear Point phase Spanish Colonial, Protohistoric First Spanish A.D. 1528-1763 and early historic Aboriginal Colonial British A.D. 1763-1781 British Colonial Second Spanish A.D. 1781-1821 Spanish and American Colonial Territorial-Civil War A.D. 1821-1865 American American Late 19th-early 20th century A.D. 1865-1925 American Mid 20th century A.D. 1925-1950s American

13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

The prehistoric archaeological record for northwest Florida began between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago and indicates that prehistoric aboriginal populations were present until the time of contact with Spanish explorers in the sixteenth century. While the Paleoindian Stage is not well represented in the project area, the Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian stages are represented by thousands of archaeological sites located throughout the Panhandle region. The following discussion of the prehistoric context for the project area relies primarily on data from sites west of the Tallahassee Red Hills and Apalachicola Valley areas, but also draws on information from archaeological sites of extra-regional significance as well.

Paleoindian Stage

The Paleoindian Stage (ca. 12,000-8000 B.C.) is generally represented by cultural material complexes that include large, thin lanceolate stone points made on bifacially worked blade flakes. “Classic” Paleoindian points exhibit a flute or channel flake scar at their base that apparently served some purpose in a specialized means of hafting. In Florida, Suwannee and Simpson types are predominant and are usually associated with a lithic tool kit of thumbnail scrapers, blades and flake knives, and gravers. The majority of the Paleoindian sites in the southeastern are surface lithic scatters, individual finds, or occur as components of multicomponent sites, and this is true of northwest Florida. While Florida has some well-documented Paleoindian sites, such as Harney Flats in the Tampa Bay area (8HI507) (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987), that are an exception to the general situation, no well-documented Paleoindian sites are known in northwest Florida west of the Apalachicola drainage system. The distribution of known Paleoindian sites throughout Florida suggests that primary habitation areas were located along waterways and springs in central, north, and northwest Florida, including the nearby Chipola and Choctawhatchee river valleys, and the Holmes Creek valley (Waller and Dunbar 1977). Additional data suggest that the occurrence of Paleoindian sites can be expected in areas of Tertiary Karst deposits such as the sinks and lakes and Econfina Creek areas to the north of St. Andrew Bay. In these areas, Paleoindian sites are most likely to be found adjacent to spring-fed lakes and ponds, drainage heads along major divides, and along small drainages feeding Econfina Creek, especially the springs flowing into it.

The Paleoindian settlement pattern tends to reflect a strictly nomadic lifestyle based on hunting and gathering. If Paleoindian populations were intensively exploiting coastal environments in the project region, evidence is now submerged. Paleoindian period Florida was a considerably larger landmass than present-day Florida. The rise in sea level at about 8500 B.P. would have submerged any sites located on the coast and in lower river deltas and valleys (Frelund and Johnson 1993). With a rise in sea level, water table levels would also have risen, inundating spring-associated inland sites. Earlier Paleoindian and Dalton sites are rare, but do occur in proximity to the project area,

14 particularly along the Yellow and Escambia River drainages (Dunbar 1980; Waller and Dunbar 1977).

Transitional Paleoindian-Early Archaic Period

Point types viewed as Transitional or Terminal Paleoindian/Early Archaic (ca. 8500 – 8000 B.C.) represent the best evidence for Paleoindian occupation in west Florida. This transitional period is marked by the appearance of the Dalton projectile point style across the Southeast. Technological changes may be related to the environment changing from the cooler, wetter conditions of the late Pleistocene forests to the warmer and drier conditions of the early Holocene, where greater diversity in hunting and gathering practices is evident (Bense 1994; Milanich 1994). The Dalton projectile point type is most common, although specimens of the types known as Nuckolls and Wacissa have also been found in northwest Florida (Thomas and Campbell 1993). The preceding named types are all related in age and represent a change in technology away from the production of fluted points.

Archaic Stage

Charles Fairbanks (1964) noted that in northwest Florida, Archaic sites are often found in the sandy uplands and sandy knolls adjacent to either lakes or swamps; as Fairbanks observed, however, very few of these sites are deeply stratified. Tesar (1980:34) also noted that these early sites tend to concentrate around river marsh and swamp habitats, where freshwater mollusks, fish, reptiles, and other game and food resources were readily available. The St. Andrew Bay area contains environments suitable for the occurrence of Archaic sites, and many have been recorded around the bay and on its tributary streams.

Archaeologists have divided the Archaic Stage into three periods: Early (8000- 5000 B.C.), Middle (5000-3000 B.C.), and Late (3000-1000 B.C.). Each of the periods is identified by certain technological and cultural developments. In much of northwest Florida, it is often difficult to distinguish among Archaic occupations because so many sites have been identified on the basis of only a few diagnostic artifacts and so few stratified sites have been excavated and reported. This situation is especially true of Early and Middle Archaic sites, whereas the introduction of fiber-tempered pottery during the Late Archaic period makes these later Archaic sites more readily identifiable.

Early Archaic Period

Following a transitional period commonly referred to as the Late or Terminal Paleoindian period, the Early Archaic period becomes recognizable archaeologically as a change in point manufacturing technologies and morphology. Specifically, the Early Archaic is distinguished from the Paleoindian by the disappearance of classic Paleoindian point types and the widespread occurrence of smaller projectile point types (such as

15 Bolen or Kirk), drills, gravers, adzes, and grinding stones. Caching of stone tools is also identified with the Early Archaic and, unlike the Paleoindian Stage, there is evidence of semi-nomadic settlement patterns that include seasonally occupied base camps and smaller resource extraction camps (Tesar 1980). The archaeological record indicates a continued reliance on hunting and gathering, but the more diverse tool assemblage hints at increasing specialization (Milanich 1994).

Middle Archaic Period

In terms of cultural materials, the Middle Archaic is distinguished from the Early Archaic by the appearance of a variety of new artifact types and craft media that includes grooved groundstone axes, stone pendants, early bannerstone forms, a well-developed bone-tool industry, atlatls, and new projectile point types (Griffin 1967). The quality and workmanship of many Middle Archaic artifacts suggests an increasing improvement in groundstone and bone tool industries. Throughout the Southeast, the appearance of new tool types and large base camps has been presumed to represent the addition of refined and/or new economic and subsistence activities. In particular, an increased reliance on shellfish and the presence of large base camps located adjacent to lakes, swamps, and streams are hallmarks of the Middle Archaic in the Southeast. In the Florida Panhandle, the Middle Archaic marks the appearance of the Florida Archaic Stemmed point series (Newnan, Levy, Putnam, and Marion) and Savannah River Stemmed points, specialized tools such as microliths, burins, large chopping implements, and an array of expedient tools. Use of broad-bladed stemmed point types extends through the Late Archaic (Justice 1987).

The Middle Archaic marks a shift from a more dispersed settlement pattern to one of more nucleated floodplain base camps with numerous satellite camps. This shift in settlement pattern may have been in response to Altithermal climatic conditions when post-glacial temperatures peaked. Middle Archaic economic adaptations involved hunting, fishing, and gathering technologies designed to exploit a limited number of primary resources (Milanich 1994).

Late Archaic Period

As mentioned above, the Late Archaic in northwest Florida witnessed the appearance of fiber-tempered pottery. The Late Archaic period throughout the Southeast is also marked by the appearance of a few very large sites, such as Poverty Point in Louisiana, the establishment of extensive trade networks, increased sedentism, the widespread distribution of stemmed projectile points, and refinement of Middle Archaic technologies. In extreme northwest Florida, the Late Archaic is poorly understood because continued use of broad-bladed stemmed projectile points often makes pre- ceramic Late Archaic and Middle Archaic sites indistinguishable. The early portion of the Late Archaic period marks the initial adaptive response to the establishment of modern estuary systems, with the appearance of shell middens, between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago (Mikell 1999, 2001b).

16 Gulf Formational Stage

The settlement patterns evident throughout the Archaic Stage indicate a tendency toward sedentism and village life that seems to be well established by the Late Archaic- Woodland transition; pottery is, as a rule, closely associated with sedentary settlements. The Late Archaic-Woodland transition is often classified as the Gulf Formational period (Walthall and Jenkins 1976). The Gulf Formational bears evidence of significant changes from preceding Late Archaic cultures. Among these changes are apparent increases in population, the widespread appearance of dense village middens, possible experimentation with plant food production, and regional interaction and trade. A local Gulf Formational period regional complex related to Poverty Point of the lower Mississippi Valley, the Elliot’s Point complex, has been identified on the Choctawhatchee Bay by various investigators (Fairbanks 1960; Lazarus 1958; Thomas and Campbell 1993:527-541). The Elliot’s Point complex includes “designed” fired clay balls, a microlith industry, and other Poverty Point-like expressions.

Although fiber-tempered pottery is a Late Archaic/Gulf Formational phenomenon, pottery certainly is not as common on Late Archaic sites as it is on later sites. In northwest Florida, fiber-tempered pottery is tentatively identified with the Norwood series as defined by Phelps (1965). Norwood series pottery is found on sites from the Apalachee Bay west to Pensacola and inland into Alabama and Georgia. Willey (1949:359-60) recognized that in northwest Florida, fiber-tempered pottery types are found in association with the later Deptford complex, even though fiber-tempered pottery sites on the Georgia and South Carolina coast predate Deptford period pottery. The appearance of pottery during the Late Archaic signals a transition, which led to later developments during the Woodland Stage.

Woodland Stage

Deptford

Deptford sites have been recognized both in the Lower Atlantic slope and northeast Gulf coast regions, and the Deptford period has been variously dated to between ca. 500 B.C. and A.D. 300 (Milanich 1973, 1994; Tesar 1980; Willey 1949). Deptford sites are identified through a series of paddle-malleated, sand-tempered ceramics. Common Deptford pottery types include Deptford Check-Stamped, Deptford Simple-Stamped, Deptford Linear-Check-Stamped, and various associated net-, fabric-, dowel- and cord-impressed types, complicated-stamped types, and plain pottery. These Deptford types commonly occur on coastal and river valley village sites that are indicative of sedentary occupations. Deptford sites on the Gulf coast often contain ceramics associated with related cultures from as far away the Tombigbee and Alabama River Valley regions and indicate the presence of extensive trade networks.

In terms of settlement, Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) identify two favored locales for Deptford sites: 1) coastal live oak stands either on off-shore islands or on the mainland, but always near marshes or lagoons; or 2) inland river valleys. Milanich (1973)

17 argues that Deptford was basically a coastal adaptation based on fishing and shellfish exploitation and that inland sites represent temporary, river valley resource extraction sites. Tesar (1980), on the other hand, argues that Deptford sites located in the Apalachicola Valley and near the interior lakes of Leon County represent permanent occupations of the interior and the establishment of an inland-coastal exchange network. Bense (1985) argues for a base camp-satellite camp settlement pattern in northwest Florida, where base camps are marked by the presence of shell middens that are almost exclusively on the coast in lower bay live oak/hickory hammocks or on barrier islands near brackish or fresh water sources. Deptford subsistence patterns reflect exploitation of a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic resources.

There are few documented Deptford burial mounds. Those that are known suggest that the initial appearance of burial mound mortuary ritual, which may be Hopewell- related and are known as the Yent complex (Sears 1962), occurred during the Deptford period. Yent complex artifacts indicate exchange and include exotic items such as copper, mica, conch shells, ear spools, and non-local ceramics. Deptford camps and village sites are common to the St. Andrew Bay area and the Choctawhatchee Basin. Two of the best documented Deptford sites in the region are the Hawkshaw site (8ES1287) in Pensacola (Bense 1985) and Pirate’s Bay (8OK183) in Fort Walton Beach (Thomas and Campbell 1985).

Santa Rosa/Swift Creek

Although Willey (1949) defined Santa Rosa/Swift Creek as a cultural period that is usually dated to between A.D. 100 and 500, there is a great deal of debate as to whether or not it is a true cultural period or a set of influences that affect a long transition between the clearly recognizable Deptford and Weeden Island periods. This is especially true for the region of northwest Florida west of the Apalachicola Valley and along the immediate Gulf coast. East of the Apalachicola Valley, Swift Creek forms a clear cultural period. Santa Rosa, which was apparently centered west of the project area, is believed to be a religious phenomenon only to the east of the Pensacola area. In essence, the Middle Woodland-period culture of the Florida panhandle was an amalgamation of different influences: Marksville from the lower Mississippi Valley, Hopewell from the Ohio Valley, the complicated stamped ceramic tradition (Swift Creek) from the central and northern Georgia region, and the indigenous Deptford and emergent Weeden Island cultures (Milanich 1994).

Santa Rosa/Swift Creek is identified by the presence of complicated-stamped, incised, shell-stamped, punctated, check-stamped, cord-marked, and burnished plain ceramics of the Santa Rosa and Swift Creek series. In northwest Florida, these ceramics are usually sand or grog tempered and have a micaceous paste. Common Santa Rosa/Swift Creek types include early Swift Creek Complicated Stamped varieties, Alligator Bayou Stamped, Basin Bayou Incised, Santa Rosa Stamped and Punctated types, Gulf Check Stamped, West Florida Cord Marked, and Franklin Plain (Willey 1949).

18 There are numerous ceremonial structures in Santa Rosa County that contain Santa Rosa/Swift Creek ceramics and apparently predate the Weeden Island period. Santa Rosa/Swift Creek mortuary practices incorporated the use of exotic imported materials and goods, including galena, mica, hematite, and copper artifacts. This and other evidence suggest aesthetic and ideological affinities with the Hopewellian sphere of influence (Struever 1972) and perhaps direct or indirect ties with Mesoamerica via the Gulf or lower Mississippi Valley. Indirect ties to the Ohio River Hopewell and the lower Mississippi Marksville and Troyville are not questioned, but as Willey observed (1949), Santa Rosa/Swift Creek ceramics in northwest Florida are locally made, not imported. The socio-religious aspect of Santa Rosa/Swift Creek culture has been defined as the Green Point complex (Sears 1962). The Green Point and preceding Yent complexes appear to be closely related, with few differences aside from ceramic styles.

Settlement patterns for Santa Rosa/Swift Creek appear to be clusters of small villages located near coves, bayous, and marshes on larger bays and in the larger river valleys. Ceremonial structures are often located away from villages. Subsistence practices appear to change little between Deptford and Santa Rosa/Swift Creek, although Milanich (1973) suggests that Swift Creek people probably practiced horticulture. Sites with Santa Rosa and Swift Creek ceramics are common in northwest Florida. There are many Santa Rosa/Swift Creek sites located on St. Andrew Bay, as well as a small number of potential sites within the Econfina Creek WMA (Mikell 2001a).

Weeden Island

The hallmark of the Woodland Stage on the northern Gulf coast of Florida is the Weeden Island period, which dates from as early as A.D. 400 to about A.D. 1000. Weeden Island is best known for its exotic, non-utilitarian pottery and mortuary rituals, which included the construction of burial mounds. Willey (1949) defined Weeden Island ceramic assemblages as including “carry-overs” of some earlier Santa Rosa and Swift Creek types as well as numerous new and distinctive types of sand-tempered pottery. Common northwest Florida Weeden Island types include late varieties of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped; Weeden Island Punctated, Incised, Zoned Red Painted, and Plain; Carrabelle Punctated and Incised; Indian Pass Incised; Keith Incised; Tucker Ridge Pinched; West Florida Cord Marked; and the ever-present Wakulla Check Stamped.

Recent research indicates that Weeden Island refers to several distinct regional cultures that shared similar basic ceremonial complexes related, in northwest Florida, to the Yent-Green Point complex (Sears 1962). The basic Weeden Island ceremonial complex may have been related to specific social and political patterns leading to the advent of chiefdoms (Milanich 1994). However, not all Weeden Island traits are found within all regions of the Weeden Island culture area, which stretches from the Mobile Bay area to the Tampa Bay area along the Gulf coast. Many Weeden Island “related” and Weeden Island “period” cultural complexes are found along the Gulf coast and inland on major rivers as far from the coast as the upper Alabama River and the middle . Weeden Island sites literally dot the landscape of northwest Florida. Several are located in the Econfina Creek WMA (Mikell 2001a).

19

Weeden Island was initially described as a coastal culture with no inland manifestations (Willey 1949; Willey and Woodbury 1942). Subsequent investigations indicate that Weeden Island sites, including major villages and ceremonial centers, are common well inland from the Gulf coast within larger river valleys of north Florida and southern Georgia and Alabama (Kohler 1978; Milanich 1974; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Milanich et al. 1984; Sears 1956). Several researchers cite evidence of increasing centralization of authority and economic power during the Weeden Island period; this is especially true of evidence recovered from some of the larger ceremonial centers (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Sears 1956). This interpretation closely follows that of Percy and Brose (1974), who postulated that changes in Weeden Island settlement patterns were a result of increases in population and an increasing reliance on horticulture that fostered a more centralized system of authority and economic control, but “did not give rise to ranked chiefdoms where authority and political office were inherited.”

Weeden Island can be described as a dynamic culture that represents a widespread acceptance of a basic cultural and ideological framework, which spread over the entire northern Gulf coast of Florida. The elaboration of earlier Woodland ceremonial, mortuary, and exchange traditions as seen in Weeden Island reflects a basic sociopolitical pattern that was associated with a hunting-gathering-horticultural adaptation to the Gulf Coastal Plain region. These sociopolitical practices were reinforced by a set of religious beliefs involving various ceremonies and practices, including burial mound mortuary treatment for at least a segment of the various populations associated with the Weeden Island phenomenon. At approximately A.D. 700, for reasons that are currently not well understood, Weeden Island culture begins to decline, and eventually disappears between A.D. 1000 and 1200, just prior to or in conjunction with an influx of Mississippian cultural and ideological influences (Florida Division of Historical Resources 1995).

Mississippian Stage

Early/Middle and Late/Protohistoric Periods

The Mississippian Stage is represented in the Florida panhandle by the closely related and sometimes indistinguishable Fort Walton and Pensacola traditions of northwest Florida and lower Alabama. The Fort Walton and Pensacola periods in northwest Florida date to between about A.D. 1000 to 1200 and A.D. 1750. Fort Walton sites are common to the Choctawhatchee region and east to the Tallahassee Red Hills. Pensacola sites are common along the coast from the Choctawhatchee Bay to west of Mobile Bay and up the Mobile, Tensaw, lower Tombigbee, and lower Alabama rivers. The basic differences in these two closely related “cultures” are tempering agents used in pottery production and a greater reliance on agriculture by Fort Walton populations in the Tallahassee Red Hills region. Shared elements of Mississippian material culture such as ceramic styles and manufacturing technologies, copper and shell artifacts, and construction of flat-topped temple mounds are characteristic of several Gulf coastal sites that are considered to be “...identical to those found at Etowah and Moundville” (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:193). Moundville and Etowah are two well-known, major

20 Mississippian centers located in west central Alabama and northwest Georgia, respectively.

Although one hallmark of Mississippian culture is intensive reliance on efficient agriculture, there is little evidence for this form of subsistence in northwest Florida outside the Tallahassee Red Hills region and the Apalachicola Valley. Despite this “missing ingredient,” the coastal and marginal interior area manifestations of Fort Walton and Pensacola are clearly linked to the Mississippianization of the Gulf coast region. In fact, Willey (1949) associated Fort Walton with other Mississippian cultures and described it as a coastal adaptation or variant since the type site (8OK6: Fort Walton Temple Mound), like several other large Fort Walton and Pensacola sites, is located on the coast. Willey also defined the Fort Walton ceramic series as including the following types: Lake Jackson Plain and Incised, Fort Walton Incised, Point Washington Incised, Marsh Island Incised, and the incised and plain varieties of the Pensacola series. Major Pensacola types include several varieties of D’Olive, Mound Place, Moundville, and Pensacola Incised, and varieties of Bell Plain and Mississippi Plain. Moundville-derived ceramics, such as Moundville Incised and Moundville Engraved types, are also found in some Fort Walton and Pensacola assemblages. Pensacola ceramics tend to increase in frequency in later Fort Walton ceramic assemblages from sites located west of the Apalachicola Valley. Such an increase likely represents increasing social and economic influence from the Mobile Bay region late in the period (Mikell 1992).

Brose and Percy (1978) note that Fort Walton sites located west of the Apalachicola Valley are found primarily along the coast from St. Andrew Bay to Mobile Bay. These Fort Walton sites consist of a few ceremonial centers along with a number of small villages and campsites. Brose and Percy conclude that Fort Walton west of the Apalachicola appears to be a continuation of the Weeden Island socio-economic pattern with the addition of Mississippian social organization as derived from earlier Fort Walton developments in the Apalachicola Valley and Tallahassee Red Hills regions. Mikell (1992, 1993, 1995b) has defined three phases of the Fort Walton variant on Choctawhatchee Bay: Little’s Bayou (A.D. 1000-1200), Indian Bayou (A.D. 1200-1500), and Fourmile Point (A.D. 1500-1750).

Fuller (1985, 1998), Milanich (1994), and Stowe (1985) view Pensacola as a Moundville-derived coastal manifestation or variant. The area encompassed by the Pensacola variant includes the northern Gulf coast west of Choctawhatchee Bay to the Pascagoula River in Mississippi and up the Tombigbee and Alabama rivers to about Jackson and Camden, Alabama, respectively. Three phases have been defined: Andrews Place (A.D. 1000-1200), Bottle Creek (A.D. 1200-1550), and Bear Point (A.D. 1550- 1750).

Apparently, the Fort Walton and Pensacola cultures remained viable in northwest Florida and southwestern Alabama until Spanish explorers introduced diseases that resulted in major declines in population (Fuller 1985, 1998; Fuller and Brown 1998; Fuller and Stowe 1982; Mikell 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Scarry 1990; Stowe 1985). Population decline in turn undermined social and economic conditions leading to the

21 eventual disappearance of this prehistoric culture. Fort Walton and Pensacola developed into the tribal groups and chiefdoms known as the Apalachee, Apalachicolas, Chatot or Chacato, Tomeh, Mobile, and the historically recorded Pensacola (Panzacola) by the time of the Hernando de Soto and Tristan de Luna expeditions (Knight 1984; Scarry 1990). The Chacato and Apalachicolas, who were likely descendants of the Fort Walton archaeological culture, are believed to have occupied the St. Andrew Bay region during the late prehistoric and Protohistoric periods, or between the early A.D. 1500s and 1700. Fort Walton sites or sites with Fort Walton components are quite common in the St. Andrew Bay area.

HISTORIC CONTEXT

The historic archaeological record for northwest Florida began with arrival of Spanish explorers in the early sixteenth-century. Although not as rich and varied as the prehistoric record, the historic record of the project area is quite formidable. St. Andrew Bay and the Econfina Creek area played an important role in the American period (1821- present) settlement and development of northwest Florida.

Colonial Periods

Aboriginal Cultures of the Colonial Periods

In conjunction with the establishment of the Spanish mission system and the increasing emergence of European influence after A.D. 1650, the Leon-Jefferson culture, representing a mixture of indigenous and European influences, replaced the previously entirely indigenous culture. This change is noted in the local ceramic assemblages of the Leon-Jefferson area, located to the east of the Econfina area (Florida Division of Historical Resources 2004). As a result of influences from European powers, Leon- Jefferson communities were concentrated in proximity to missions, trading posts, and forts (Chance 1977; Jones et al. 1991; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Leon-Jefferson sites “are very common in the Tallahassee Hills region of the eastern panhandle, especially the area from the to the ” (Milanich 1995). Jones et al. (1991), Milanich (1994), and others have observed that new types of ceramics were introduced into late Fort Walton assemblages and that the major means of subsistence was based on agriculture.

Between 1601 and 1695, more than 100 missions were established in Spanish Florida, but few existed west of the . Very few Leon-Jefferson sites are known west of the Apalachicola and those that are identified as such are poorly understood. Between the period of European exploration of Florida in the early sixteenth- century and Early American settlement of Pensacola by the 1700s and the Econfina and Holmes valleys in the early 1800s, various aboriginal groups sparsely inhabited the region (Milanich 1995).

22 The little information that does exist for the 250-year interim between the Fort Walton and Pensacola periods and American settlement suggests that the inhabitants of northwest Florida at the time of first contact were the Panzacola and Chatot or Chacato. The Panzacola inhabited the Pensacola Bay area and were in conflict with the war-like Mobilians from the Mobile Bay area, according to Spanish accounts. The Chacato were a small tribe that was likely associated with the Apalachee and Apalachicolas. The Chacato’s home range was between the Valley and Pensacola Bay (Milanich 1995). The Chacato are first mentioned in a 1639 letter in which the Spanish Governor Damian de la Vega Castro y Pardo reported establishing peace among the Chacatos, Apalachicolas, Amacanos, and Apalachee. By the early 1700s, most of the north Florida tribes, including the Chacato, Apalachee, Apalachicola, and Panzacola, had been devastated by attacks from the Georgia colonists and/or tribal conflicts and had retreated west as far as Mobile Bay. The vacant area was then claimed and periodically settled by the Lower Creeks (Seminoles) and their allies (Milanich 1995).

First Spanish Period

The first Spanish period (A.D. 1528-1763) marks the beginning of European exploration of the southeastern United States. The Spanish were the first of the European explorers to colonize northwest Florida. Panfilo de Narvaez led an expedition to North American from Spain in 1527, and his expedition landed in west Florida, near Tampa Bay, in April 1528. Hurricanes and fights with the local native tribes killed many of the crew, who were abandoned when the pilot of the ship left without them and sailed to Mexico. Survivors of the Narvaez expedition in 1528 were likely the first Europeans to see west Florida, including St. Andrew Bay. The next Spaniards known to have been in the region were associated with Hernando de Soto’s expedition in the Southeast (1539- 1541). Francisco Maldonado, a pilot with de Soto’s expedition, waited in Pensacola during the winters of 1539 and 1540 to re-supply the ill-fated expedition, but there are no known records from this visit. In 1559, Tristan de Luna attempted to establish a colony at Pensacola, but by 1561 this ill-fated attempt also was abandoned. The Luna Colony has never been located. The Spanish resettled in Pensacola at Santa Maria de Galve (on Naval Air Station Pensacola), on Santa Rosa Island, and in present day Pensacola in 1698 and the 1750s, respectively, but lost their colonial possession to England in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Seven Years War in Europe.

British Period and the Second Spanish Period

Although some Colonial-period activity may have taken place along the coast in the St. Andrew Bay area (Fryman in Swindell et al. 1979), it was not of strategic military or economic importance, and the primary focus of settlement was the Pensacola area. The British made Pensacola the capitol of their province of West Florida, converting the small Spanish settlement into a busy port city and a center of commerce. By the 1770s, the Spanish and English were again at war. The Spanish, under the leadership of Bernardo de Galvez, regained west Florida and ousted the British from the capitol city of Pensacola in 1781. During the Second Spanish period, both new and old industries (brickyards,

23 sawmills, naval stores, Indian trade, etc.) grew and ensured Pensacola’s place as an important port and center of commerce. The relatively minor port (and fort) at St. Marks was the closest Spanish facility to the St. Andrew Bay area.

The Spanish apparently established an earthen fort on St. Joseph Bay, but there is little information recorded concerning it. The French attempted to invade Spanish Florida in 1717 by establishing Fort Crevecoeur near present-day Mexico Beach, but the fort lasted less than two years when abandoned with French attempts to control West Florida.

John Lee Williams wrote about northwest Florida in the 1820s, making mention of “rich settlements” to the north of St. Andrew Bay, including Chipola and Econfina, stating that “the principle trade of which, at this time, passes through St. Andrews Bay” (Williams 1827:14). Many of the Colonial period settlers in northwest Florida were Americans from the Carolinas looking for better land. These pioneering families settled near creeks such as the Econfina and Chipola, and tributaries of the Choctawhatchee River, on fertile land, essentially “squatting” in Spanish territory. The Spanish could do little about American encroachment and eventually lost their colony to the United States following the War of 1812 and the Creek Wars of 1813 and 1816. It was after the Creek Wars that vigorous settlement of the Florida Panhandle began. Settlement was initially hindered, however, by the transfer of large tracts of land from Spain and various Indian tribes to John Forbes & Company, a Pensacola-based trading company that grew out of the Panton, Leslie & Company. Panton, Leslie & Company dominated the area economically between the 1760s and 1790s (Bense 1999; Carswell 1991).

American Periods

Early American Period

The first substantial American settlement of Econfina Creek area occurred as the newly formed United States began to acquire the crumbling colony of Spanish West Florida as a territory in the early nineteenth century. Spain sold Florida to the U.S. and ceded it by treaty in 1820. In 1821, Florida became an American territory. became the first governor of the new territory. Florida remained a U.S. territory until 1845, when it was granted statehood, and this territorial period from 1821 to 1845 was dominated by military activities.

In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams ordered the building of forts and a Navy Yard at Pensacola, but the St. Andrew area remained rural and sparsely settled. Washington County (from which Bay County was later created in 1913) was established as Florida’s twelfth county in 1825. On May 24, 1826, President John Quincy Adams ordered the sale of large tracts of land in west Florida to facilitate settlement of the area. To increase settlement during the 1820s, surveys of Washington County (part of which is now Bay County) were made and federal roads were established, such as the road from Pensacola to St. Augustine; the road from Apalachicola to Eufaula (Alabama), which passed through St. Andrew to Chipley; and Marianna Road along the east side of Econfina Creek. These roads facilitated settlement on the north side of St. Andrew Bay

24 long before the establishment of the communities that would eventually become Panama City. Efforts to increase settlement in this area were a success, as many government land patents and homestead claims in the St. Andrew Bay area date to 1827 (Tebeau 1971).

During this period, as during the preceding Colonial periods, Pensacola continued to be the focal point of settlement and commerce in the region, but commerce also flourished in the St. Andrew Bay area as well. At the head of North Bay (now Deer Point Lake), Thomas Ormond, Andrew Young, and Rufus Sewall operated a trading business between Bayhead in central western Bay County and the upper portions of Washington and Jackson counties. During the late 1830s, Ormond, Young, and Sewall engaged in the purchase and shipping of cotton and other commodities. The 1827 John Lee Williams map (Williams 1827), original land plat maps, and U.S Government land patent records indicate that during the 1820s and 1830s, settlement and land acquisition on North Bay and the Econfina proceeded at a brisk pace. This trend continued throughout the nineteenth century as the timber and naval stores industries grew in northwest Florida. During the Antebellum period (1840s-1850s) the St. Andrew area also began to develop, as prosperous planters built summer cottages, and stores and taverns opened in the community of St. Andrews. Although the early to mid-1800s was a period of relative prosperity and growth for the American settlers, the native Indians were struggling with their forced removal from elsewhere in the southeastern U.S.

During the late eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, as the St. Andrew Bay area was being settled, Creek Indians who had been driven from their homelands in Georgia and Alabama sought refuge in west Florida. During the British period (1763-1781), the English had encouraged the Lower Creeks to settle in west Florida. The Creeks were a confederacy and readily traded and interacted with colonial settlers. Following the Creek Wars of 1813 and 1814 were the First (1816-1818) and Second (1835) . With the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the government moved toward relocation of the aboriginal populations that remained in the Southeast.

Although the project area was not the scene of major historical events associated with Indian removal, the 1840s brought a period of conflict to the St. Andrew Bay area. In 1840, Territorial Governor R.R. Reid warned the citizens of west Florida that bands of Cherokees, Creek, and Seminoles had returned to the area from their reservations in the west. State and federal military efforts were mounted in an effort to remove the Indians again; these efforts met with Indian retribution (Tebeau 1971). On February 2, 1839, the St. Joseph Times reported the presence of a large number of Indians on East Bay:

About 200 refugee Indians are said to be concealed in the hammocks on the Eastern Arm of St. Andrews Bay between 30 and 40 miles north of this place. A detachment of U.S. troops are in pursuit of them. As yet they have committed no depredations and excite little alarm in the neighborhood.

In 1853, the Florida Legislature passed a law whereby it was “unlawful for an Indian or Indians to remain within the limits of the State.” Yet many remained, either seeking

25 anonymity or as renegades living as lumbermen, trappers, or farmers. The residents of the Econfina settlement were said to have taken precautions against Indian raids, but in 1840 the Jones massacre occurred. Marlene Womack (1994:33) recounted William Augustus Gainer’s (William A. Gainer) narrative, which also provides information on early settlement life, as follows:

About September 1, 1840, two men named Richards and Beathem appeared at Mrs. Jones’ door with Indians they were taking to the Apalachicola River [Blountstown] for deportation. At that time it was customary for neighbors and travelers to stop at homes for dinner, since no dining places existed in the wilderness. Mrs. Jones happened to be serving “peppered eggs” that day, a special treat because the spice was hard to obtain on the frontier. After the party left, some of the Indians escaped. They returned to the Jones’ household on September 10 and murdered Mrs. Jones, two of her children, and a boatman named Lograths. They claimed that Mrs. Jones’ death was justified because she tried to poison them by putting pepper on their eggs.

The name “Econfina” is derived from the Muskogee term for natural bridge, or “Ekana” meaning earth and “Feno” meaning footlog or bridge (Carswell 1974:20). It has long been held that a natural bridge across Econfina Creek once existed somewhere north of SR 20. However, there is little evidence of it other than the term “Natural Bridge” depicted on the 1827 John Lee Williams and 1846 Joseph G. Bruff (U.S. War Department 1846) maps. Although the Williams map depicts the Pensacola-St. Augustine Road as crossing the Econfina at “Natural Bridge,” there is no mention of it in federal records associated with the building of the road (Womack 1994).

One of the first American settlers in the area for whom there is a substantive historical account is William Gainer. Gainer, a surveyor and mathematician, came to the Econfina area from Georgia in 1824 or 1825 with his wife and children and established a plantation on the west side of Econfina Creek north and south of present-day SR 20. Gainer served as a scout and surveyor in the U.S. Army during Andrew Jackson’s 1818 invasion of Florida. It was during his time in the Army in West Florida that Gainer discovered and surveyed the Gainer (Emerald) Springs and Williford Spring, eventually bringing his family back to the area to settle. William Gainer patented several tracts of land in the Econfina area beginning in 1837, and is said to have lived at the original Gainer homestead until his death at age 84, in 1870. William Gainer was appointed Washington County’s first surveyor and he served in that capacity for ten years, between 1847 and 1857, and his son, William A. Gainer, was appointed Justice of the Peace in 1857 (Carswell 1991).

In the nearby Econfina settlement, Gainer’s neighbors included other settlers. William Evans, Sharpless Evans, Josiah and Wiley Jones, Robert Adams, Elijah Robbins, the Reverend Soliden, and Silas Wood are among the earliest American residents of the Econfina area (Womack 1994). The Gainers remained a prominent family in the Econfina area for many years to follow. The descendants of William Gainer hold a

26 reunion annually at Big Gainer Spring (Emerald Springs) on Econfina Creek. Much of the early history of the area was recorded in William Augustus Gainer’s diary beginning in 1804 when he was 17 years of age (Womack 1994, 1998). William A. Gainer was the second son of William Gainer.

The Econfina area remained rural, as it is today, but settlement continued and the local population grew. Families such as the Walsinghams, the Evans, and the descendants of William Gainer established small plantations where slaves worked the fields of corn, cotton, and other crops and tended livestock. Prior to the Civil War, Econfina was a sizable community and in May 1855, the Econfina Post Office opened. Mail arrived by horseback from Marianna and St. Andrews (Womack 1998). Econfina was an agricultural center during its prime.

The indices to the 1830 (Census Online 2006a:106) and 1840 (Census Online 2006b) federal census records indicate that William Gainer, Elijah Robbins, and Josiah Jones lived in proximity to each other. William A. Gainer states “When my father and family came to the Econfina country, they were accompanied by others. Among these were Elijah Robbins, family and slaves, from Virginia; Josiah Jones and son [Wiley], who was married, and Rev. Soliden” (West 1922:54). Census records for 1850 (Census Online 2006c, 2006d) and 1860 (Census Online 2006e) do not include Elijah Robbins, but Josiah Jones, age 95, is listed as a farmer along with several of his descendants in the 1850 census. The last census record to include Elijah Robbins is the 1845 Florida State census (Census Online 2006g). Josiah and Wiley Jones are not listed on the 1860 Federal census (Census Online 2006e).

The Gainer family members are prominent figures in the 1850 and 1860 census records. In the 1850 Federal census records (Census Online 2006c, 2006d), William Gainer, age 65, is listed as the head of household with his children James W. (20), Thomas (16), Walter R. (14), and Vashti (21), and was in possession of 47 African- American slaves. Gainer’s second son, William Augustus (27) is also listed as a farmer along with his wife, Sarah, in 1850. In 1860, William Gainer and his son Thomas Henry are listed in the same household as farmers in possession of 800 acres of improved land, 300 acres unimproved land, livestock valued at $2,800.00, agricultural holdings valued at $5,200.00, and a personal worth of $27,500.00 (Census Online 2006f). William A. and Sarah Gainer in 1860 are listed as having title to 175 acres of improved land, 25 acres of unimproved land, agricultural holdings valued at $625.00, livestock valued at $929.00, and a personal worth of $7,000.00 (Census Online 2006f). Prior to the Civil War, William Gainer’s third son, George Franklin Gainer, was sheriff of Washington County (1858-1860). Walter Raleigh Gainer, who eventually joined the Confederate forces, is curiously absent from census records with the exception of 1850. Robert C. Adams, who is mentioned in West (1922) and Carswell (1991) and is described as a neighbor and friend of Josiah Jones in Washington County Court documents, also is not listed in nineteenth-century federal census records.

Bureau of Land Management General Land Office (BLM GLO) records indicate the locations that the Gainer, Adams, Jones, Evans, Robbins, Porter, Watson, and other families or individuals settled or farmed in the Econfina area. For the Econfina settlement

27 area, defined as Townships 1 North and 1 South within Range 13 West alone, BLM GLO records indicate that 38 patents were issued by 1861. Patents issued for the Econfina area prior to the Civil War are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Econfina Settlement Area Land Patents Issued before the Civil War. Issue Year BLM Accession Patentee Name Acres Location Patent Type /Serial No. SW of SE Sec. 33 1837 40 FL0110__.296 Robert C. Adams SW of SW Sec. 34 sale-cash entry 40 FL0110__.297 T1N, R13W 1860 W1/2 of SW Sec. 10 William C. Bryan 80 FL0280__.175 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W John W. Campbell 1847 W1/2 of SE Sec. 9 John R. W. Clark 80 FL0190__.258 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W Wylie P. Clark 1840 NE of NE Sec. 4 Joseph Croskey 40 FL0150__.409 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 1837 SW of NW Sec. 21 Sharpless Evans 40 FL0120__.150 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 40 NE of SW Sec. 21 1856 Sharpless Evans 40 NW of SE Sec. 21 FL0250__.228 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 1837 SE of SW Sec. 10 William Evans 40 FL0120__.149 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 1841 SW of SE Sec. 10 William Evans 40 FL0160__.294 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 40 SW of NW Sec. 9 FL0120__.183 1837 William Gainer 40 NW of SW Sec. 9 FL0120__.363 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 1837 NW of SW Sec. 34 William Gainer 40 FL0120__.365 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W 1838 NW of SE Sec. 33 William Gainer 40 FL0130__.041 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W SE of NE Sec. 9 40 NE of SE Sec. 9 FL0250__.253 1856 40 William Gainer SW of SE Sec. 17 sale-cash entry 40 NW of NE Sec. 20 FL0250__.254 40 T1S, R13W 1861 S1/2 of NW Sec. 34 William A. Gainer 80 FL0290__.419 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W SE of SE Sec. 17 1837 40 Samuel Gayner NE of NE Sec. 20 FL0120__.436 sale-cash entry 40 T1S, R13W W1/2 of SE Sec. 27 1837 80 FL0120__.114 Josiah Jones E1/2 of SW Sec.27 sale-cash entry 80 FL0120__.115 T1N, R13W 1838 E1/2 of NW Sec.27 Wiley Jones 80 FL0130__.111 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W 1856 NW of NE Sec, 15 Angus McQuagge 40 FL0240__.249 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W 1837 E1/2 of NW Sec. 9 Samuel H. Mitchell 80 FL0110__.320 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W

28 Issue Year BLM Accession Patentee Name Acres Location Patent Type /Serial No. NE of SE Sec. 4 1837 40 FL0110__.317 Charles T. Porter SE of NE Sec. 4 sale-cash entry 40 FL0120__.100 T1S, R13W 1838 E1/2 of SW Sec. 4 Charles T. Porter 80 FL0130__.204 sale-cash entry T1S, R13W SW of SW Sec. 9 1840 40 FL0150__.478 Eliza L. Porter NE of NW Sec. 15 sale-cash entry 40 FL0150__.479 T1S, R13W 1846 E1/2 of SE Sec. 33 Elijah Robbins 80 FL0180__.361 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W 1856 SE of SW Sec. 22 John J. Russ 40 FL0240__.396 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W 1856 NW of NE Sec. 34 Ashley J. Tippins 40 FL0240__.395 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W SE of SE Sec. 9 40 FL0120__.094 W1/2 of NE Sec. 9 80 FL0120__.095 SW of SE Sec. 4 1837 40 FL0120__.096 James Watson E1/2 of SW Sec. 9 sale-cash entry 80 FL0120__.163 NW of SE Sec. 4 40 FL0120__.165 SE of SE Sec. 4 40 FL0120__.236 T1S, R13W 1837 W1/2 of NE Sec. 27 James Watson 80 FL0120__.116 sale-cash entry T1N, R13W

Civil War Period

The forts of the Pensacola Bay area were of critical importance during the Civil War period (1861-1865). The Confederate Army seized Pensacola early in 1861, but later that year Union forces took Fort Pickens and controlled the pass from the Gulf of Mexico into Pensacola Bay (Pearce 2000). As a result, St. Andrew Bay, which was a minor port prior to the war, became a strategic area to the Confederacy because of “its sequestered bayous and creek [that] afforded blockade runner’s excellent hideouts for unloading medicine, coffee, and ammunition” (Womack 1994:37).

By 1862, St. Andrew Bay served the Confederacy as both a vital port and a primary location for salt production. Numerous salt works, which consisted of boilers and salt kettles for boiling down seawater to obtain salt, were constructed along the shores of St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay, and Phillips Inlet. Salt works ranged from smaller, hastily set up operations to more complex industrial sites. In response to the growing importance of the St. Andrew Bay to the Confederacy, the Eastern Gulf Blockading Squadron of the Union Navy established facilities for operations on Hurricane Island at the entrance to the Old Pass of St. Andrew Bay and at Redfish Point, on what is now Tyndall Air Force Base. Several Confederate ships were captured in or near the St. Andrew area during the war and in 1863 a skirmish and the subsequent leveling of the community and port of old St. Andrew occurred (Womack 1998). The Econfina settlement was also raided during the Union actions against the St. Andrew area. West (1922) describes a raid that reached 44 miles inland from the coast and resulted in the burning of cotton, bridges, mills, storehouses, and salt works and Carswell (1991)

29 indicates that a raid on the Econfina area in 1864 emphasized the taking of cattle and other livestock.

Although the large battles of the Civil War were fought elsewhere, the citizens of the St. Andrew Bay area were involved in the war. Many settlers were divided on the politics of the war (Carswell 1974), but a large number of the area’s residents participated in the war either as soldiers, salt works producers and laborers, or by transporting goods overland from St. Andrew Bay. In April 1862, for example, the 500-ton side-wheeler Florida, which had run the Union naval blockade and unloaded tons of munitions and rifles at the mouth of Bear Creek on North Bay, was captured while on-loading cotton. Responding to urgent calls to help transport the cargo, residents with their “carts and wagons from the Econfina, Holmes Valley, and Chipola settlements … [helped] to haul away cargo from the steamer Florida” (Carswell 1974:75), probably from the old Ormond, Young, and Sewall port at Bayhead.

The residents of the Econfina area contributed to the Confederate army. Two Florida infantry units were made up of Washington County men: Company H, 4th Florida Infantry (known as the “Washington County Invincibles”) and Company K of the 6th Florida Infantry. Lieutenant Thomas H. Gainer and Walter R. Gainer, both sons of Econfina pioneer William Gainer, were members of Company K, 6th Florida Infantry. The sons of Econfina area settlers Sharpless and William Evans, John Russ, and Charles Porter are also listed on the rosters of the Washington County units (Carswell 1991). Thomas H. Gainer was wounded at Jonesboro, Georgia, in 1864 and Walter R. Gainer, George Franklin Gainer, and their older brother William A. Gainer were taken prisoner during the later years of the war. William A. and George F. Gainer were members of the Confederate army, but were “home guards,” and George F. Gainer was involved with the Confederate Government Beef Detail, according to a statement by his son George F. Gainer, Jr., and was the Washington County Tax Collector during 1863-1865 (personal communication, Brian Chambless, 2006).

Asboth’s raid on Marianna, located about 35 miles north-northeast of Econfina, was the most notable action of the Civil War impacting northwest Florida. General Alexander Asboth set out with 700 Union cavalry troops from Fort Pickens to conduct a raid on Marianna in late 1864. Marianna, a small village of 500 people, was the Jackson County seat and the headquarters for Confederate military operations in the region. Between Pensacola and Marianna, Asboth’s troops wreaked havoc on the communities of Eucheeanna, Douglass Ferry on the Choctawhatchee River, Campbellton, Orange Hill, and Marianna, burning and looting as they passed through the countryside. The final action of the Civil War in the area was a raid on salt works in February 1865. Reconstruction had less impact on the St. Andrew Bay area than other regions in northwest Florida, especially Pensacola (Carswell 1974).

30 Late Nineteenth-Early Twentieth Century and Mid-Twentieth Century Periods

The 1870s saw a resurgence of the timber trade, foreshadowing the great change that came to the Panhandle when the Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad (later known as the Louisville & Nashville Railroad) was established in the 1880s. In 1881-1882, Pensacola and other trade centers such as St. Andrew, Vernon, and Marianna were connected to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, providing rail connections to markets such as Jacksonville to the east and Montgomery to the north (Schang Internet 2004). Prior to this time, transportation and communication along the Gulf coast was maintained by horse and wagon or by flat-bottomed steamers and pole barges that made regular trips along the coast and up rivers to various landings such as Bayhead on the north end of St. Andrew Bay (North Bay). The Pensacola-St. Augustine Road was a major transportation artery to points east and it passed through the St. Andrew Bay area. By the 1830s, stagecoaches began hauling mail and passengers between Tallahassee and Pensacola. With the opening of the railroad, many new immigrants came to the area and the timber industry boomed.

The establishment of railroads in west Florida opened up the timber and naval stores industries. The timber industry was the major economic force in the Bay County region, which was renowned for its timber resources. Logging and naval stores work sites, such as stills and side camps, dotted the landscape of the Panhandle. Coastal and riverfront towns like Vernon, Bayhead, and old St. Andrew were involved in the naval stores and timber industries as the locations of mills, turpentine stills, and shipping points. As early as 1885, the St. Andrew Bay Railroad and Mining Company envisioned making St. Andrew Bay the largest seaport on the Gulf coast, but financial scandal ruined the grandiose plans. It was not until after the turn of the twentieth century that major railroad lines, such as the Atlanta & St. Andrew Bay and the Birmingham, Columbus, and St. Andrew Bay lines, were completed and directly connected the area to larger markets (Womack 2000a).

During the early portion of the twentieth century, stores and hotels, one with a golf course, were built at Bayhead, and the tourism industry began to develop in earnest at St. Andrew and around the Bay. Shipbuilding and lumber processing and export became major developments in Panama City, Millville, and St. Andrew. Bay County was created by Florida legislators on April 24, 1913, with Panama City becoming the county seat a year later (Womack 1994). During Prohibition, Bay County was well known for the production of moonshine. Illegal stills were located in remote areas such as North Bay (now Deer Point Lake) and Econfina Creek, where secluded clear creeks and hammock provided ideal settings for the “industry” (Womack 1998). With the decline of the naval stores industry and the Depression, the smaller communities declined and lost population as people moved to the developing towns of Panama City, Millville, and St. Andrew (Womack 1998).

The Gainer family remained a prominent family in the Econfina area into the early to mid-twentieth century. Three of William Gainer’s sons, William Augustus, Thomas H., and Walter R. Gainer, in particular, recovered from the hardships of the Civil War and Reconstruction to remain as landowners and farmer, public officials, and leaders

31 of their community (Carswell 1991). BLM GLO patent records indicate that the descendants and relatives of William Gainer and their family members were issued 20 land patents in the Econfina area between 1891 and 1916 (Table 3). Among the Gainer “family members” was Adam Gainer, a former William Gainer slave, who remained with the Gainers following Emancipation and the end of the Civil War.

Table 3. Summary of Gainer Land Patents Issued after the Civil War and Reconstruction. Issue Year BLM Accession Patentee Name Acres Location Patent Type /Serial No. S1/2 of SE Sec. 5 1891 Adam Gainer 160 E1/2 of SW Sec. 5 FL0850__.040 Sale-Cash Entry T1S, R13W E1/2 of NE Sec. 17 Archibald J. 1904 SW of NE Sec. 17 160 FL1070__.343 Gainer Homestead Entry NW of SE Sec. 17 T1S, R13W W1/2 of SE Sec. 12 Augustus W. 1914 160 S1/2 of SW Sec. 12 429772 Gainer Sale-Cash Entry T1S, R13W S1/2 of SE Sec. 34 1916 Deliah Gainer 160 E1/2 of SE Sec. 34 525593 Homestead Entry T1N, R13W W1/2 of NW Sec. 2 1910 Eadie Gainer 160 E1/2 of NE Sec. 3 158723 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W W1/2 of SW Sec. 4 1910 Edward L. Gainer 160 N1/2 of SE Sec.5 114383 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W 1910 N1/2 of NE Sec. 6 Edward L. Gainer 80 104355 Sale-Cash Entry T1S, R13W 1910 SW ¼ of Sec. 6 Elizabeth Gainer 160 146133 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W 1912 SE ¼ of Sec. 28 Eugenia O. Gainer 160 249441 Sale-Cash Entry T1N, R13W 1912 NE of NE Sec. 8 Josephine Gainer 40 302347 Sale-Cash Entry T1S, R13W 1915 SW ¼ of Sec. 26 Louella Gainer 160 498434 Homestead Entry T1N, R13W SW of NE Sec. 2 1909 NE of SW Sec. 2 Peter Gainer 120 636610 Homestead Entry NW of SE Sec. 2 T1S, R13W 1916 SE of NE Sec. 2 Peter Gainer 40 524445 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W N1/2 of NW Sec. 3 Sarah A. Gainer 1916 120 SW of NW Sec. 3 537853 William A. Gainer Homestead Entry T1S, R13W W1/2 of NW Sec. 4 1916 Thomas E. Gainer 160 S1/2 of NE Sec. 5 507499 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W SE of NE Sec. 8 1893 Walter R. Gainer 120 E1/2 of SE Sec. 8 FL0870__.122 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W

32 Issue Year BLM Accession Patentee Name Acres Location Patent Type /Serial No. W1/2 of NE Sec. 8 1909 Walter R. Gainer 160 E1/2 of NW Sec. 8 870870 Sale-Cash Entry T1S, R13W W1/2 of NW Sec. 10 1895 William B. Gainer 160 W1/2 of SW Sec. 3 FL0890__.387 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W S1/2 of SW Sec. 2 1910 NW of SW Sec. 2 William W. Gainer 160 105190 Homestead Entry NW of NW Sec. 11 T1S, R13W E1/2 of SE Sec. 3 1903 Willis Gainer 160 E1/2 of NE Sec. 10 FL1050__.331 Homestead Entry T1S, R13W

Tourism, agriculture, silviculture, fishing, and military proprietorship were the driving economic forces of the twentieth century for the Florida panhandle. The past 50 years have been influenced heavily by the military presence at Tyndall Air Force Base, as well as the growth of the tourist trade and beach development. The Econfina WMA has remained a rural, agricultural setting with silviculture and livestock production as the main economic activities in the area. Recently, rural residential development has been the Econfina area has seen.

33

This page intentionally left blank

34 CHAPTER 4

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE REGION

The earliest archaeological investigations in northwest Florida began in the 1880s with S.T. Walker’s (1885) study of shell middens and shell mounds along the Gulf coast. Walker investigated sites on Pensacola Bay and Santa Rosa Sound. At the turn-of-the- twentieth-century, Clarence B. Moore investigated numerous sites on the Gulf coast, including several on Pensacola Bay, East Bay, and Santa Rosa Sound (Moore 1901, 1918). Although Moore is best known for the mound sites he excavated, he did not restrict his activities to mounds and prehistoric cemeteries. His investigations, no matter how unsophisticated by today’s standards, have proven invaluable since many of the sites he recorded have been lost to development, looting, and erosion.

It was nearly 40 years later when the next substantive investigations took place in the project area. In 1939, Gordon Willey conducted an extensive investigation of the prehistory of Florida’s Gulf coast, which included the coastline from Perdido Bay to southwestern Florida. Willey’s work included survey, testing, and recording of numerous sites, including several on St. Andrew Bay. In his well-known Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, Willey (1949) developed a prehistoric temporal framework that still serves as the basis for the since-refined chronologies of the Florida Gulf coast. His work resulted in a synthesis in which eight cultural periods and the first ceramic typologies for the Gulf Coast were defined. Willey’s work marked the beginning of the modern era of archaeological investigation in Florida. Willey recorded one site in proximity to the projects area, a Weeden Island site (8WS1) located near the Crystal Lake Post Office to the south of the Carter Tract.

Several researchers followed up Willey’s work in northwest Florida with limited investigations of some major sites in the region, generating refined chronologies and culture characterizations for this area, especially for the Woodland and Mississippian stages (Brose 1984; Fairbanks 1960, 1964, 1965; Lazarus 1958, 1961; Percy 1974; Percy and Brose 1974; Sears 1954, 1977; Smith 1965). Cultural resource management investigations began in the area by the 1970s with surveys on Naval Station Panama City (Swindell et al. 1979; Tesar 1965) and Tyndall Air Force Base (Knudsen 1979; Mikell et al. 1989; Phillips 1995), along with surveys of the Econfina Creek WMA (Mikell 2001a) and the Choctawhatchee River WMA (Mikell and Shoemaker 2002). More recently, a survey of five bridge replacement sites within the Carter Tract has been conducted (Cockrell and Morrell 2005).

35 PREVIOUS SURVEYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ECONFINA CREEK WMA

A limited number of previous surveys have taken place in the vicinity of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts (Table 4). Aside from the previously described Phase I survey of the Econfina Creek WMA (Mikell 2001a), only three other surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of the project area. Cockrell and Morrell (2005) conducted a survey of five bridge replacement sites within the Carter Tract just prior to the initiation of fieldwork during the current project, recording three sites, 8WS468, 8WS469, and 8WS470, which are also addressed in this report. Other previous surveys include two surveys by Mikell (1993b, 1994b) at the Washington Correctional Institution.

The four previous surveys identified and recorded numerous archaeological sites in the area that are relevant to the current project. Sites recorded in proximity to the Hobb’s Pasture Addition and Carter tracts during the four surveys are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively and their locations are depicted in Figures 4 and 5. Mikell (1998) also recorded site file forms for 11 prehistoric artifact scatters within the right-of- way of CR 279 to the north of Pine Log Creek, but only four of these sites (8WS482- 8WS485) are located in proximity to the Carter Tract and are included in Table 6 below.

Table 4. Previous Surveys in Proximity to the Carter Tract and Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract. Survey Year Published and Author(s); Project Title Number Sponsor A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington 1993 Gregory A. Mikell; 3528 Correctional Institution, Washington County, Florida Florida Department of Corrections A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington 1994 Gregory A. Mikell; 3695 Correctional Institution McDaniel Lake Addition, Florida Department of Corrections Washington County, Florida A Cultural Resources Survey of Econfina Creek 2001 Gregory Mikell; 6350 Water Management Area, Bay, Jackson, and Florida Division of Historical Resources/ Washington Counties, Florida NW Florida Water Management District Archaeological Survey of Five Bridge Sites, Sand 2005 Wilburn Cockrell and L. Ross pending Hill Lakes Mitigation Bank (Carter Tract) Morrell; Washington County, Florida NW Florida Water Management District

Table 5. Previously Recorded Sites Located in Proximity to the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract. Site SHPO Survey Site Type Number Evaluation No. 8BY36 prehistoric shell midden/village, Weeden Island and Fort Walton not evaluated none 8BY970 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; unidentified Woodland not evaluated 6350 8BY973 prehistoric lithic scatter; possible Archaic not evaluated 6350 8BY997 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Weeden Island not evaluated 6350

36 Table 6. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Located in Proximity to the Carter Tract. Site SHPO Survey Site Type Number Evaluation No. 8WS379 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Woodland, Archaic not eligible 3528 8WS380 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Late Weeden Island potentially eligible 3528 8WS381 prehistoric lithic scatter; Archaic with Early Archaic not eligible 3528 8WS382 early to middle 20th century structure artifact scatter not eligible 3528 8WS412 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Woodland, Archaic not eligible 3695 8WS468 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Weeden Island not evaluated pending 8WS469 historic mill site and/or canal dam, spillway and bridge not evaluated pending 8WS470 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Woodland, Archaic not evaluated pending 8WS482 prehistoric lithic scatter; Archaic not evaluated none 8WS483 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Woodland, Archaic not evaluated none 8WS484 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Woodland, Archaic not evaluated none 8WS485 prehistoric lithic scatter; Archaic not evaluated none

37

This page intentionally left blank.

38 CHAPTER 5

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

Two primary objectives were the driving forces in this research design. The first major objective was to formally test and evaluate a small number of historic homesteads and mill sites. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of the sites, and to collect data and information about the historic settlement of the area for dissemination through both publications and the future establishment of an Econfina Creek WMA historical/cultural/environmental resources interpretive center. The second objective was to record as many sites as possible in order to develop predictive models for site location and determine the characteristics for high and low probability areas for the occurrence of archaeological sites. The second was applied to the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts surveys.

Extensive background documentary research clarified the history of settlement and land use in the project area, particularly in association with the sites investigated. In addition to the reconnaissance-level survey, site recording, and limited site testing and evaluation, a prehistoric lakeshore site was selected for testing based on the findings of the initial Econfina Creek WMA survey (Mikell 2001a). Several Early Archaic, undefined Archaic, and potential Paleoindian sites have been recorded in lakeshore locations typically underwater during periods of high rainfall today (Mikell 2001a). Site 8WS539 was selected (8WS539) on the basis of its potential to have intact Archaic or Paleoindian components.

SITE RECORDING METHODS

The cultural resources survey of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts within the Econfina Creek WMA was designed to gather baseline data necessary to develop a management plan for protecting and stabilizing archaeological sites, as well as predicting high probability locations for the occurrence of archaeological sites. Five primary goals are defined within the research design: 1) locate, identify, and record sites on and immediately adjacent to District land, 2) document the condition of and threats to each site, 3) identify NRHP eligible or potentially eligible sites when possible, 4) develop a model for site location on District lands, and 5) develop a cultural resources management plan for District properties surveyed.

To document cultural resources within and adjacent to the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts, a reconnaissance-level archaeological survey was undertaken, focusing on surface collecting and/or shovel testing a sample of high-probability areas (HPA). In the study area, HPAs consist of any relatively high, well-drained, level to

39 moderately sloping landforms on the margins of or in some proximity to water sources. Low-probability areas consist of wetlands, areas that are regularly flooded, and steeply sloping areas, regardless of soil type. Currently inundated areas were not investigated. Due to time and budgetary constraints, not all HPAs within the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts were investigated.

SITE EVALUATION METHODS

The site evaluation methodology was developed in an effort to achieve the primary objectives discussed above. The primary objective for site evaluation was to determine if a particular site is eligible for listing in the NRHP. Site testing procedures were based on the “Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals” of the Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operational Manual by the FDHR (2004). These included a uniform set of field methodologies designed to determine the integrity of cultural deposits present at a given site and the potential of those remains to contribute to the reconstruction of prehistoric and historic lifeways. The site testing methodology described was predicated on recovering those classes of data needed to determine NRHP eligibility. Those classes of data included:

• the site’s integrity, including determination of the depth of deposits and the extent of undisturbed soil horizons and the presence/absence of intact cultural features, degree of disturbances, and degree of disturbances by past human activity;

• the cultural components present at the site, including further definition of those components previously identified and assessment of the position and function of the site within the most recently defined cultural chronology of the region;

• the depth and horizontal distribution of archaeological deposits;

• the presence or absence of subsurface features or midden, including information on the densities of cultural features and feature types such as post holes, pits, structural elements, etc.; and

• the presence and preservation of floral and faunal materials, including intrasite densities of these materials and preliminary data on the quantitative presence of various subclasses of zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical remains.

These data are sufficient for an evaluation of the site in terms of the criteria established for inclusion in the NRHP. Such an evaluation is included and fully documented and justified as part of a report of investigations, accompanying a general assessment of the research potential of the site in view of legitimate issues of current archaeological research within the study region.

40 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, established as the policy of the federal government the protection of historic sites and values in cooperation with other nations, states, and local governments. The NHPA defines the appropriate terms and sets forth, in detail, the procedures for nominating sites to the NRHP. It lists criteria for determining the eligibility of a property, and provides for public comment prior to placing a site on the NRHP. The FDHR has adopted state procedures and guidelines that are comparable to those of the federal government regarding historic preservation.

To be considered significant, the property must meet one or more of the four NRHP criteria in addition to possessing archaeological or structural integrity:

A. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Certain types of sites (such as historic cemeteries, sites less than 50 years of age, graves of historical figures, religious structures) usually are not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. Archaeological sites are most commonly evaluated under Criterion D. Occasionally archaeological sites may qualify under criteria A, B, or C as well however, Criterion D is most often applied. To be eligible, an archaeological site must have the potential to yield important information about the prehistory or history of the area, state, or nation (USDI 1998). In general terms, only a small percentage of formally evaluated archaeological sites are considered eligible for NRHP listing. While this may be the case, sites not eligible for NRHP listing may be considered significant and eligible for nomination to a local (county or city) registry, if one exists in particular study area. A site not considered NRHP eligible on an individual basis may be eligible if it can be demonstrated to be a contributing component of an archaeological and/or historical district.

FIELD METHODS

Standing structures were also photographed in black and whites 35 mm format as per FDHR requirements. Artifacts and ecofacts recovered were segregated by provenience, given a discrete field specimen (FS) number, and bagged accordingly.

41 Reconnaissance Survey

Prior to the excavation of shovel tests in HPAs, a systematic pedestrian survey was conducted on District lands, including examination of all existing roads, trails, and cleared areas where visibility exceeded 30 to 50 percent of the ground surface. Areas accessible by road or overland were examined in greater frequency to expedite the survey and cover larger areas. Sites recorded based on surface finds were often not shovel tested, particularly in the Carter Tract. In the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract, however, a general lack of surface visibility resulted in far more shovel testing in order to identify or confirm HPAs.

Shovel tests were 50-x-50 centimeters (cm) in size and were excavated to a depth of at least one meter below the ground surface, unless hydric soils were encountered. Shovel tests were spaced at 20 to 40-m intervals. Soil matrix from each shovel test was screened through ¼-inch hardware mesh. Standard shovel test recording procedures were employed and the soil stratigraphy in each shovel test was illustrated or described using standard soil terminology and Munsell color designations. Following the completion of all documentation, shovel tests were back-filled.

When subsurface cultural materials were encountered during the survey, limited shovel testing on each site was conducted to roughly determine site boundaries and/or obtain soil profiles and examine internal variation. It should be noted that sites were not thoroughly bounded, as on a 20-m grid, for instance. In many cases, either judgmentally placed shovel tests or single 20 to 40-m interval transects were used, in conjunction with surface scatters and/or judgmentally placed shovel tests, to estimate site boundaries. On severely disturbed sites and sites partially or completely outside District boundaries, the extent of surface scattered artifacts was used to estimate site boundaries. Standard site recording procedures were used, including the drawing of site area maps or the plotting of surface scatters on quadrangle maps, the completion of field log notes for each site, creation of a photographic record for each site, and completion of State of Florida site file forms.

Site Testing and Evaluation

At some sites, field methods were implemented that met or exceeded State guidelines for Phase II testing and evaluation. Field procedures were documented on standardized field forms and supplemented with photographs. The locations of surface finds also were recorded. Using this information, PCI produced maps that documented the location of each test unit, shovel test, surface finds, cultural features, topography, relative position to natural resources such as water, and other information that was determined to be useful for site interpretation. The site locations were plotted on USGS topographic quadrangle sheets. High-resolution, color digital photographs were taken of the site area and of any associated features. Field notes, map notation, and photo documentation of test locations were maintained throughout the project. Site mapping, subsurface testing, and general field procedures are detailed as follows.

42 For sites that were tested, site mapping was performed by establishing a fixed datum (Datum 1) and arbitrarily assigning it a coordinate (1000 N, 1000 E). Using a transit level (CST/Berger SAL Series) and stadia rod, distances and elevations for a series of points were recorded, including test units, each established datum, topographic features, general elevation points, and nearby structures and other extant construction features. Any additional datums established were tied into the grid originally established from Datum 1. The data generated was used to generate maps. Where shovel tests were excavated on sites recorded during survey of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts, sketch maps based on metric tape measurements relating roads, fence lines, cleared and landscape features such as streams, ponds, sink holes, and other topographic features were made.

Testing and evaluation of sites 8BY989, 8WS514, and 8WS581 included the use of metal detector to aid in the identification of metal artifact concentrations and larger metal artifacts. The metal detector survey of the three tested sites consisted of crossing each site on north-south and east-west intersecting transects spaced approximately 10 m apart. Each transect was approximately 2 m wide, or the area covered by the sweeping motion of metal detector. A Pioneer Model 202 metal detector was used for the surveys. When metal artifacts were identified by metal detector rings (hits) pin flags were placed at the location of each hit or in areas with multiple hits. This methodology allowed for concise location of the former location of historic structures by the identification of “nail fields”, individual large metal artifacts, and refuse disposal areas that were subsequently identified by way of shovel test and/or test unit excavation. Although the results of the metal detector surveys were not mapped, identification of metal artifact concentrations and larger metal objects played a major role in the placement of subsurface excavations and in identifying the location of structures.

Shovel tests measured 50-x-50 cm (20-x-20 in.) and were excavated to a depth of 100 cm (39 in.) unless precluded by natural barriers, such as bedrock or groundwater. All excavated soils were dry screened through 1/4-in (0.64-cm) hardware cloth.

Test units were excavated at sites 8BY989, 8WS514, and 8WS581. Test units measured either 1-x-1 m or 1-x-2 m, and were excavated in arbitrary 10-cm levels. The test units were excavated to either a depth of 100 cm, the maximum depth for unit wall stability, or until two consecutive culturally sterile levels were encountered. The base of each level was photographed and plan views were drawn when features were present. Unit profiles were drawn and photographed, with strata and features recorded with reference to Munsell soil colors. All excavated soils were dry screened through 1/4-in (0.64-cm) hardware cloth, except where bulk samples were removed from features for fine screen processing.

Standardized unit logs, level forms, feature forms, excavation unit summaries, and photograph logs were maintained. Profile drawings were completed to illustrate each test unit and shovel test excavation. Test unit profile drawings were made using metric rulers and a line level. All measurements on the test unit profile drawings that refer to centimeters below datum (cmbd) are actually referring to the distance of the ground

43 surface and stratigraphic layers below the line level, not a datum established for the site. Photographs in digital format were taken to illustrate each excavation unit and to document the general field procedures.

During the process of excavation, test units left open overnight were cordoned off with fluorescent flagging tape. Upon completion of shovel tests and test units, the excavated matrix was backfilled into the open units.

LABORATORY METHODS

Materials recovered during the survey were transported to PCI laboratory facilities for cleaning, stabilization, analysis, and preparation for curation. Upon initial receipt of materials and field forms, bag lists were entered into a computer database. Materials were cleaned and, if necessary, stabilized before classification and quantification by laboratory analysts. Cultural materials were sorted on the basis of morphologic attributes, raw material type, measurements, and/or function. The “Classification” section describes various categories used to classify materials and summarizes attributes observed during examinations of selected specimens. The “Curation” section discusses the preparation of cultural and archival material for curation.

Classification

PCI cultural material classifications incorporate mutually exclusive categories based primarily on raw material, and morphologic and metric attributes. Previously defined types, or diagnostics, are often used to facilitate chronological assessments and intrasite comparisons. Following are category definitions coupled with descriptions of selected specimens recovered during the investigation. Type frequencies are summarized in a comprehensive listing under each site description.

Chipped-Stone Debitage

Chipped-stone debitage is the byproduct of stone-knapping activities. Although PCI recognizes that various research orientations may require different classification strategies, a standardized chipped-stone debitage typology has been adopted for use in the analysis of material recovered during most projects conducted by the company. The typology is based on knapping experimentation, literature reviews, statistical analyses designed to isolate analyst biases, and a need for an objective and efficient manner for processing large collections of debitage. Moreover, the typology potentially provides information for discerning technology used to produce chipped-stone implements, types of activities conducted on sites, and locations of activity areas on sites, as well as for evaluations concerning lithic material procurement.

In order to rectify the problems identified with analyst bias, PCI has adopted Ahler’s (1989) mass or aggregate analysis techniques. A primary benefit of Ahler’s

44 classification scheme is that specimens can be sorted objectively and consistently in a time-efficient manner without requiring advanced study of knapping techniques or morphological attributes. Furthermore, Ahler pointed out that independently conducted knapping experiments have repeatedly indicated the utility of this kind of analysis for identifying types of knapping activities conducted on archaeological sites.

Four attributes are typically taken into consideration in the aggregate analysis: size, weight, material, and presence or absence of cortex. Size is determined using a series of nested screens. Screens consist of 1-inch, 1/2-inch, and 1/4-inch (3-cm, 1.3-cm, and 0.64-cm) hardware meshes. Debitage is size graded on the basis of the largest screen size through which the specimen will not pass. For instance, if a specimen that passes through a 1-inch screen can be turned in any manner (e.g., diagonally) and still will not pass through a 1/2-inch screen, the example is labeled as a 1/2-inch piece. Following this method, there are four size grades: 1-inch, 1/2-inch, 1/4-inch, and less than 1/4-inch. In addition, material type (e.g., chert, quartz, quartzite, etc.) and the presence (primary and secondary decortication debitage) or absence of cortex (tertiary debitage) was recorded for each specimen. A combined weight is ascertained for all specimens exhibiting the same characteristics from a single provenience (e.g., 1/2-inch chert tertiary debitage).

Ahler (1989) and Andrefsky (1998) have discussed several theoretical observations regarding flint knapping that are particularly pertinent to interpretations based on the results of aggregate analysis. 1) Flint knapping is principally a reductive or subtractive technology. Consequently, as reduction of a stone implement proceeds during the manufacturing process, the tool becomes progressively smaller and the sizes of byproducts decrease. 2) Cortex is gradually removed from the outer surface of the core/tool during the reduction process. Accordingly, the dorsal faces of debitage should exhibit less and less cortex as the knapping process progresses. Insofar as some raw materials do not display cortex, the value of recording the presence or absence of cortex depends upon raw material type. 3) Debitage produced by pressure-flaking techniques generally is “small enough to pass through a 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screen.” In accordance with this supposition, size-grade data may indicate the proportional contributions of debitage resulting from pressure versus percussion flaking techniques. 4) Debitage produced by marginal and nonmarginal percussion flaking techniques can generally be differentiated on the basis of size-grade data. Nonmarginal debitage is presumably thicker and consequently weighs more than marginal byproducts. Correspondingly, average weight of debitage in a particular size grade may be used to distinguish those that were produced by marginal flaking techniques from those resulting from nonmarginal flaking methods. In respect to interpretations, debitage produced by nonmarginal percussion flaking is assumed to be the byproduct of core reduction while that generated by marginal percussion flaking is presumed to result from bifacial thinning.

Prehistoric Ceramics

Previously defined pottery types are a source of several problems for contemporary archaeologists. Perhaps most notable are the ambiguities in many of the

45 published type definitions. A lack of sortable, mutually exclusive types is well illustrated by fairly recent attempts to address ceramic typology problems in the south Atlantic Slope region (see Anderson 1996). In the Panhandle region, this is particularly true for sand- and/or grit-tempered plain and check-stamped types. For instance, based solely on published descriptions for sites in northwest Florida and southern Alabama, many Wakulla Check Stamped, Deptford Check Stamped, and McLeod Check Stamped specimens are indistinguishable from one another without temporally diagnostic attributes such as certain rim treatments that are seldom found in small survey samples.

Use of previously defined ceramic types often has resulted in pigeonholing specimens into categories rather than searching for variability in distributions of attributes. This predilection stifles further refinement of chronology as well as studies of pottery use and manufacture, goals that are usually not attainable with survey-level ceramic assemblages. Given the problems outlined above, there is a perceptible need for breaking with archaeological tradition and seeking new ways to analyze ceramics in the Southeast. Insofar as chronological relationships explicated by earlier researchers form the basic framework for regional chronology, refinements of pottery chronology require linkage with existing information and datasets. In accordance with these particulars, one of PCI’s research objectives is to conduct distributional analyses of pottery attributes and to link the studies to established chronological foundations. Whenever possible, however, defined type and paste characteristics classifications based on Willey (1949) are utilized so that cultural/temporal affiliations can be made for sites and their artifact assemblages. Specimens not confidently fitting into published types were placed into residual categories based on paste and surface treatments. Morphological attributes of each sherd were recorded (body sherd, rim sherd, etc.).

In northwest Florida, sand-tempered plain ceramics can often be sorted based on their paste and ware characteristics as defined by Willey (1949). In Willey’s definition of Lake Jackson Plain, he states that “plain ware of the Fort Walton Period can be sorted out from Weeden Island and Santa Rosa-Swift Creek unidentified sherds with about 80 percent accuracy.” Lake Jackson ware and paste characteristics, which partially define Fort Walton period ceramics, are described as follows. Tempering is medium to coarse sand and/or medium-size grit (crushed quartz or quartzite) particles often with grog (crushed clay or ceramics). In general, tempering material is coarser than Weeden Island Plain (Willey 1949). Paste is fine and compact to coarse, lumpy and contorted. Paste cores are usually gray with fired surfaces, whitish buff, buff, and reddish buff-colored. Surface texture is often smoothed, but rarely polished, and characterized by temper particles that often extrude through the core onto the surface. Grog-tempered specimens give the surface a coarse texture. Interior and exterior surfaces are commonly mottled and vary in coloring, depending on the degree of firing. Coil fractures are commonly observed in Lake Jackson Plain paste ceramics.

Architectural Materials

Architectural materials include those artifacts related to the construction of a structure, including raw materials and hardware. Nails, bricks, metal, mortar, and window

46 glass are important parts of an architectural artifact assemblage since all can be temporally sensitive. The architectural remains are also common on historic archaeological sites.

Kitchen Glass

Glass artifacts are sorted on the basis of color, morphological attributes, and makers’ marks. Several glass attributes serve as temporal markers. For example, although Jones and Sullivan (1989) point out that color is generally not a good chronological indicator, there are a few notable exceptions. In general, dark green “black” bottle glass is the most common type recovered from late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century archaeological contexts in the Southeast. Solarized amethyst is perhaps the most temporally diagnostic glass color, dating from ca. 1880 to 1915. Its availability ceased in 1915 due to the outbreak of World War I, and the lack of glass imported from Germany to the United States (Baugher-Perlin 1982; Kendrick 1966). Another temporally diagnostic glass color is selenium, a pale yellow glass color, which manufacture dates range from 1916 to 1930. Other important temporal indicators include pontil marks (pre- 1860), three-piece molds (1809-1880), applied lips (pre-1900), embossed lettering (1869- 1900), and machine-made bottles (post-1899) (Kendrick 1966). Kitchen glass also includes tableware, such as tumblers.

Historic Ceramics

A wide variety of historic ceramic types were recovered during the current project. In general, the ceramic specimens recovered include coarse earthenware, porcelain, porcelaneous stoneware, terracotta, ceramic tile, stoneware, creamware, pearlware, whiteware, and yellow ware. Ceramics can be divided into two categories: refined and unrefined. Refined wares were commonly glazed to render them impermeable and were often decorated (MacMahon 1991). Unrefined wares (coarse earthenware) were not as consistently glazed and were often plain. Coarse earthenware vessels are most commonly used for utilitarian purposes and a less vitreous than stoneware. While the use of coarse earthenware predates stoneware, it continues to be produced in modern times.

The analysis of historic ceramics began by sorting the ceramics according to their paste types (unrefined or refined). The ceramics were further sorted by paste subcategories; however, white-bodied ceramic types (refined earthenware) are often difficult to sort on the basis of simple visual inspections under normal lighting conditions (see Price 1979:13-15). The next step was to sort the ceramics by their different surface treatment (i.e. slipped, glazed, or transfer-printed). In addition, their unique decorative designs and colors that distinguish the ceramic types within surface treatment categories were noted. The following is a discussion of the types important to this investigation.

Porcelain is sorted from white-bodied earthenware ceramics on the basis of its opacity, and its highly vitrified paste, which renders it impermeable. In the seventeenth

47 and early eighteenth centuries, porcelain was considered the finest, and most expensive, of the historic ceramics (Noël Hume 1970). Porcelain, imported from Asia and later manufactured in Europe, has a fine clay body that is translucent along thinner edges. Different varieties of porcelain are difficult to discern. Consequently, porcelain is not considered a good temporal marker.

Chinese porcelain is always hand-painted and can be decorated both over and under the surface. English manufactures produced porcelain from 1745 to present, which was often hand-painted in dark blue relief under the glaze.

Stoneware is a vitrified ceramic fired at high temperatures and is typically used in the manufacture of utilitarian vessels (Greer 1981). Certain stoneware glazes are particularly useful as chronological markers, including Albany-slipped, Bristol-slipped, Alkaline-glazed, and salt-glazed varieties.

Albany slip is a dark brown to black slip named for alluvial clays from the Hudson River Valley in New York (Greer 1981). According to Greer (1981), Albany slips became popular outside of New York during the last quarter of the nineteenth- century. Bristol slip is a chemically produced white to gray slip first developed in England during the 1850s (Greer 1981). A common Bristol slipped artifact in the project area is the “ginger beer bottle.” American potters adopted Bristol slip for stoneware during the 1880s. A combination of Albany and Bristol slips was common until about 1920, after which time Bristol was almost always was used. Alkaline glazes are brown and green streaked or mottled in color. Alkaline glazes were locally made and sometimes contained urine or tobacco spit, hence the term alkaline. Salt-glazed stoneware is recognized by a textured surface resembling that of an orange peel (Greer 1981). According to South (1972), salt-glazed stoneware was manufactured as early as the late seventeenth-century, and Greer (1981:263) states that salt-glazed vessels generally date prior to the twentieth-century.

Yellowware and mochaware are classified as types of stoneware; however, yellowware is commonly less dense than stoneware and considered porous. Yellowware and mochaware was manufactured in England between the years 1785 and the 1850s. The manufacture of yellowware and mochaware for utilitarian use continued in the United States into the late nineteenth century. Banding or annular decoration was the most common form of decoration on these pottery types and usually consisted of one to many horizontal bands of the same color (McAllister and Michel 1993).

Pearlware exhibits a white clay body and has a clear lead glaze containing a small amount of cobalt (Noël Hume 1970; Price 1979). The glaze displays a bluish or greenish cast with a deeper blue color where the glaze puddles in vessel crevices. Pearlware was developed in the 1770s and began to wane in popularity during the 1820s and 1830s. According to Price (1979), some researchers have suggested that pearlware was manufactured until the 1850s and perhaps as late as the 1890s. Notwithstanding, pearlware appears to be confined primarily to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

48

Whiteware exhibits a white clay body and a clear glaze and lacks the colored tints of creamware and pearlware (Noël Hume 1970; Price 1979). Within the archaeological study of nineteenth-century ceramics, a type similar to whiteware, referred to as ironstone, is sometimes distinguished. Ironstone is generally considered to have a harder paste than whiteware; but using this criterion to classify individual sherds has proven difficult, especially since paste hardness is known to vary within a single vessel (Price 1979). Because of the difficulty in visually sorting whiteware from similar ironstone ceramics, coupled with the fact that both types date to about the same time period, PCI classifies both whiteware and ironstone under the category of whiteware.

Chronologically, several important decoration types were used on white-bodied ceramics. Pearlware and whiteware shell-edged rims consist of a molded decoration on which colored bands were applied and date from about 1780 to 1860 (Noël Hume 1970; Price 1979). Transfer-printed decorations consist of monochrome designs applied to ceramics via copperplate engravings (Price 1979). Although the technique was mastered as early as the 1750s, transfer-printing did not become popular on white bodied ceramics until sometime between the 1770s and 1790s (Noël Hume 1970). Transfer-printing continued into the 1880s (Coysh and Henrywood 1982). Flow blue decorations are comprised of painted or transfer-printed designs that “flowed out or bled into the surrounding undecorated portions of the vessels” (Price 1979:21). According to Price (1979), flow blue decorations date from approximately 1830 to 1860. Pearlware was commonly decorated with broad, engine-turned grooves filled with color; this decoration was most popular from 1795 to 1815 (Noël Hume 1970). Pearlware is common to sites that predate the 1850s to 1880s in northwest Florida, whereas various early varieties of transfer-print whiteware and flow blue whiteware tend to more common on sites that postdate the 1840s to 1850s.

Metal

Metal specimens are classified according to metal type (e.g., ferrous, cuprous, lead, etc.), morphology (e.g., ferrous metal strap), and presumed function. Some metal objects are useful for establishing chronology and activities that may have taken place on a site. For instance, military buttons, coins, certain types of ammunition, and military hardware are considered particularly valuable artifacts for dating site components.

Nails provide a potential for dating the archaeological remains of architectural structures. For example, wrought nails are found in sixteenth-century archaeological contexts in the Southeast (Ewen 1990; Walling 1993), and continued to be used into the nineteenth century (Noël Hume 1970). Americans first made machine-cut nails in the 1790s (Noël Hume 1970). From about 1790 to 1820, machine-cut nails exhibited slight “waists.” By 1830, the cut specimens were similar to those of today. Wire nails were first produced in North America in the 1850s; and by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, wire specimens were produced in sufficient quantities to compete with machine- cut nails (Noël Hume 1970). Assuming that “nails were bought soon after they were manufactured, that they were used fairly soon after purchase, and that they were used

49 only once,” Orser et al. (1987) developed general guidelines for dating contexts based on proportions of machine-cut and wire nails. Accordingly, contexts producing no wire nails tend to predate 1855; those dominated by machine-cut specimens predate the 1880s; those that contain roughly equal proportions of both machine-cut and wire nails often date to the 1880s to 1890s; and those with mostly wire nails tend to postdate the 1890s.

Bone, Shell, and Plant Remains

This category includes vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains, as well as charcoal and other charred or carbonized plant remains.

Other

The Other category is a catchall for those artifact types that are not included in the above categories. Materials such as plastic and unmodified rock are included in this category.

LABORATORY DOCUMENTATION

Standardized forms were used to record data concerning recovered cultural materials. This effort was geared toward the compilation of tabular summaries of recovery (i.e., Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets). All pertinent information, including sample type, catalog numbers assigned, date of analysis, and initials of analysts, was recorded on these forms. As analysis proceeded, summary tables were generated to provide data on diagnostic and other pertinent material recorded. This provided rapid access to cultural, temporal, and in particular cases, functional information, thus aiding the interpretations. All material recovered was tabulated by specific provenience. These data are presented in Appendix A by intrasite provenience and analytical class.

CURATION

Following cleaning, stabilization, classification, cataloguing, and quantification of material by the PCI laboratory staff, cultural materials and documentary records accumulated during the project were prepared for final curation. Field and laboratory documentary records were copied on acid-free, archival quality paper. Photographic negatives were enclosed in properly labeled, clear plastic sleeves.

During laboratory analysis, materials were cataloged in the following manner. Materials were grouped into Field Specimen (FS) lots by type and provenience. For example, 14 pieces of plain sand-tempered sherds recovered from a single unit and level would be grouped together into a single lot and provided a sequential lot number within

50 that provenience’s particular FS number. Lot numbers were provided in catalog records and on bag labels. Materials were bagged by lot numbers in appropriately sized, 4-mm polyvinyl bags. Information consisting of provenience information, accession numbers, and lot numbers were written on each bag. Unstable and/or fragile materials were packaged accordingly.

Upon final approval and acceptance of the report of investigation, the cultural materials recovered during this project will be curated at the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research facilities in Tallahassee. Documentary records, including notes, field and analysis forms, photographic records, and logs will be curated along with the cultural materials.

PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH UNEXPECTED DISCOVERIES

An effort has been made during this investigation to identify and evaluate possible locations of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; however, the possibility exists that evidence of historic resources may yet be encountered within the project limits. Should any evidence of historic resources be discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work in that portion of the project site should stop. Evidence of historic resources includes aboriginal or historic pottery, prehistoric stone tools, bone or shell tools, historic trash pits, and historic building foundations. Should questionable materials be uncovered during the excavation of the project area, representatives of Panamerican Consultants, Inc., will assist in the identification and preliminary assessment of the materials.

In the event that human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts are uncovered within the project area, all work in that area must stop. The discovery must be reported to local law enforcement, who will in turn contact the medical examiner. The medical examiner will determine whether or not the State Archaeologist should be contacted per the requirements of Chapter 872.05, Florida Statutes.

51

This page intentionally left blank.

52 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS

HOMESTEAD AND MILL SITES TESTED

Test excavations at 8BY989, 8WS514, 8WS539, and 8WS581 were conducted between late December 2005 and late January 2006, with test units measuring 1-x-1 m and 1-x-2 m excavated in addition to shovel tests at sites 8BY989, 8WS514, 8WS539, and 8WS581. Descriptions of the test excavations follow.

8BY989 – The Last Gainer Homestead

Site Type: late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century homestead artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: Bennett, Fla. 1982, T1S, R13W, Section 5 Elevation: 90-95 ft. (27-29 m) amsl Landform: ridge crest, side slope Soils: Blanton fine sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine with scattered planted cedar and ornamental plants NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: potentially eligible as part of multiple property submission

Site 8BY989 is the remains of a late-nineteenth- to middle-twentieth-century homestead identified by Mikell (2001a) as the Walter Raleigh Gainer and Martin Gainer homestead. The site is situated on a level to gently sloping portion of a ridge crest located west and northwest of a sink area that contains two small ponds (Figure 6). 8BY989 is considered the “last Gainer homestead” because it was the last of the Gainer family places in the Econfina Creek area to be abandoned. Gainer family members state that the homestead was occupied from the mid-1800s until the late 1950s and have also said that Walter R. Gainer, the youngest son of William Gainer, was the head of the household and spent his final years at this homestead. Walter R. Gainer died in 1920, at which time his son, according to family history, Edward L. Gainer, was deeded the property. Apparently Edward Gainer’s son, Martin Gainer lived there until the homestead was abandoned in the late 1950s (1958?) and the property was sold in the 1970s. The remaining structure was razed after it was vandalized in the 1960s.

Historic records and the archaeological evidence suggest a different scenario, however. The archaeological evidence, which is detailed below, clearly indicates a late- nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century occupation, with distinct emphasis on twentieth- century remains. BLM GLO records indicate that the property on which 8BY989 is located just within the 160-acre homestead patent issued to Edward L. Gainer in 1910 (BLM GLO Accession/Serial No. 114383). Edward L. Gainer’s patent included the

53 Gainer (Emerald) Springs area in Section 4 and the north half of the southeast quarter of Section 5 where 8BY989 is located. The 1910 homestead patent date indicates that the homestead was present by at least 1905. The patent date and the archaeological remains on the site are in agreement, but there is no evidence that the site was occupied before the 1880-1890 timeframe.

Site 8BY989 was recorded during the previous Econfina Creek WMA survey (Mikell 2001a) when numerous historic artifacts, a possible well, brick features, old fence lines, livestock pens, razed structure piles, and planted cedars and crepe myrtle were documented in the reported location of the homestead (Figure 7). Scattered surface materials associated with the former homestead cover an area measuring approximately 270-x-150 m and include a dump, livestock pens and fence lines, and planted entrance- marking cedar trees located to the southeast of the house area. A massive cedar and magnolia are also present on the site (near the presumed house location), reportedly planted by the Walter Raleigh Gainer family to commemorate special occasions (Figure 8).

Figure 7. 8BY989 site map.

54 Shovel Test Excavation

Eight shovel tests were excavated across what appeared to be the main house site area of 8BY989 during the Phase I survey (Mikell 2001a:77). Historic artifacts recovered and observed on the site during the Phase I survey included a wide variety of glass container and bottle types, whiteware and brown glazed stoneware ceramics, architectural remains such as window glass, bricks and brick and mortar fragments, nails, an iron door hinge, unidentified metal, and asphalt siding or roofing material fragments among others (Mikell 2001a).

Limited shovel testing was conducted during the current project in an attempt to determine the actual location of the house. Three shovel tests 1-3 were excavated to the north and northwest of the large magnolia, which was reported to have been located at the southeastern corner of the house. While shovel tests 1-3 resulted in the recovery of artifacts, very few artifacts were recovered and ST 2 was sterile (Table 7). Test Units 1 and 2, however, indicate that the house was located to the east and northeast of the magnolia, placing the tree to the west of the front of the house (Figures 7 and 8).

Table 7. Artifacts Recovered from 8BY989 during Phase Ib Investigations, by Provenience. Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group ST 1 I 0-20 1 Architecture iron cut nail ST 1 I 0-20 2 Architecture clear window glass ST 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body ST 3 I 0-20 1 Architecture mortar fragment ST 3 I 0-20 1 Architecture iron wire nail TU 1 I 0-10 14 Architecture iron wire nails TU 1 I 0-10 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 1 I 0-10 2 Architecture iron window latch TU 1 I 0-10 41 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 1 I 0-10 3 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 1 I 10-20 1 Personal ferrous metal coin, 1943 steel penny? TU 1 I 10-20 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 1 I 10-20 7 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 1 I 10-20 12 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 1 I-II 20-30 1 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 1 I-II 20-30 4 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 2 I 0-10 2 Architecture iron cut nails TU 2 I 0-10 1 Architecture iron cut nail fragment TU 2 I 0-10 1 Architecture iron wire nail TU 2 I 0-10 9 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 2 I 10-20 1 Architecture iron wire nail TU 2 I 10-20 1 Personal opaque "white" glass, 4-hole button TU 2 I 10-20 120 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 2 II-III 20-30 1 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, bowl rim TU 2 II-III 20-30 12 Architecture green tinted window glass

55 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 2 III 30-40 1 Architecture iron cut nail fragment TU 3 I 0-10 22 Architecture iron wire nails TU 3 I 0-10 3 Architecture iron cut nails TU 3 I 0-10 1 Architecture iron fencing wire TU 3 I 0-10 2 Kitchen ferrous bottle screw cap TU 3 I 0-10 1 iron strap TU 3 I 0-10 1 Architecture iron pipe fragment TU 3 I 0-10 16 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragments TU 3 I 0-10 1 Personal brass pants button TU 3 I 0-10 1 Personal brass shoe eyelet TU 3 I 0-10 1 Personal brass clothing rivet TU 3 I 0-10 1 Arms brass bullet shell, .22 caliber TU 3 I 0-10 1 Personal whetstone fragment TU 3 I 0-10 18 Architecture brick fragments TU 3 I 0-10 1 Activities terra-cotta, body fragment undecorated yellowware, plate/bowl, 1 TU 3 I 0-10 2 Kitchen body and 1 rim undecorated whiteware, plate/bowl, 11 TU 3 I 0-10 19 Kitchen body, 6 rim, and 2 base undecorated whiteware, cup handle TU 3 I 0-10 1 Kitchen fragment TU 3 I 0.10 1 Kitchen flow-blue whiteware, plate rim TU 3 I 0-10 2 Kitchen molded porcelain, 1 rim and 1 base decal transfer-print porcelain, floral TU 3 I 0-10 1 Kitchen pattern, body TU 3 I 0-10 3 Kitchen clear glass mason jar, base TU 3 I 0-10 2 Kitchen cobalt glass, curved jar body medium olive green glass, curved bottle TU 3 I 0-10 1 Kitchen body TU 3 I 0-10 8 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body amber glass, curved bottle body, 1 TU 3 I 0-10 8 Kitchen embossed TU 3 I 0-10 16 Kitchen aquamarine glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 0-10 24 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 3 I 0-10 5 Activities clear lamp chimney glass clear glass, bottle neck, finish is folded TU 3 I 0-10 3 Kitchen lip TU 3 I 0-10 2 Kitchen clear glass, machine made bottle neck TU 3 I 0-10 18 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 0-10 5 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 0-10 2 slate, writing board fragment (?) undecorated whiteware, 14 body, 7 TU 3 I 10-20 26 Kitchen base, and 4 rim fragments, 1 tea cup handle fragment TU 3 I 10-20 2 Kitchen undecorated yellowware, body green hand-painted whiteware, plate or TU 3 I 10-20 3 Kitchen bowl, 1 body fragment, 2 rim TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print whiteware, body TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen brown transfer-print whiteware, body

56 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen brown hand-painted whiteware, base TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen brown annular decorated whiteware, rim TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen molded whiteware, rim stoneware, black-glazed interior and TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen white-glazed exterior, body stoneware, brown-glazed exterior and TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen unglazed exterior, base TU 3 I 10-20 2 Activities terra-cotta, body stoneware, light brown-glazed interior TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen and exterior, cup handle fragment TU 3 I 10-20 2 Architecture brick fragments brass shotgun shell fragments, stamped TU 3 I 10-20 3 Arms "REM UMC NITRO CLUB" TU 3 I 10-20 1 Personal brass button, stamped "BLUE STEEL" TU 3 I 10-20 1 Personal brass shoe eyelet TU 3 I 10-20 1 Arms brass bullet casing, center fire, .32 cal. TU 3 I 10-20 1 Personal ferrous metal pocket knife TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen iron, turn key for can TU 3 I 10-20 2 Kitchen ferrous metal screw cap TU 3 I 10-20 25 Architecture iron wire nails TU 3 I 10-20 18 Architecture iron cut nails TU 3 I 10-20 11 Kitchen tin can fragments TU 3 I 10-20 62 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragments TU 3 I 10-20 7 Kitchen amber glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 10-20 11 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body opaque "white" glass, curved bottle TU 3 I 10-20 3 Kitchen body TU 3 I 10-20 1 Personal opaque "white" glass 4-hole button TU 3 I 10-20 3 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 3 I 10-20 16 Kitchen aquamarine glass, bottle body TU 3 I 10-20 10 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 3 I 10-20 50 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 10-20 5 Kitchen molded clear glass, tumbler fragments TU 3 I 20-30 3 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, body brown hand-painted whiteware, plate TU 3 I 20-30 1 Kitchen rim porcelaneous stoneware, ceramic TU 3 I 20-30 1 Activities insulator fragment TU 3 I 20-30 2 Architecture brick fragments brass bullet shell, .38 caliber, center TU 3 I 20-30 1 Arms fire, stamped "WRA Co. 38 WCF" TU 3 I 20-30 1 Personal ferrous metal pocket knife blade TU 3 I 20-30 3 Architecture iron wire nails TU 3 I 20-30 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 3 I 20-30 7 ferrous metal fragments TU 3 I 20-30 1 Personal ferrous metal button TU 3 I 20-30 1 Activities iron ring iron tensioning bolt with nut, flat TU 3 I 20-30 1 Activities proximal end

57 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 3 I 20-30 1 Kitchen amber glass, curved bottle fragments amethyst glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 20-30 4 Kitchen fragments, 1 embossed amethyst glass, machine made, screw TU 3 I 20-30 1 Kitchen top finish, bottle neck aquamarine glass, curved bottle body, 1 TU 3 I 20-30 2 Kitchen embossed TU 3 I 20-30 4 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 20-30 5 Architecture green tinted window glass TU 3 I 30-40 1 Architecture brick fragment TU 3 I 30-40 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 3 I 30-40 1 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body

Test Unit Excavation

Three test units were excavated at 8BY989. Each of the test units recovered historic artifacts, but Test Units 1 and 2 recovered primarily architectural remains from the area where the Gainer house was razed. Test Unit 3 was placed in a midden-like refuse disposal area located south of the house site (Figure 8). A general soil profile for the site was obtained from shovel tests and the test units: Stratum I is 15 to 40 cm of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) to very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand, while Stratum II consists of 40 to 60 cm of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand, and Stratum II), and Stratum III is a layer of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6 to 6/8) sand (Stratum III) that extends from about 50 cm to below a meter in depth.

Test Unit 1. Test Unit 1 (TU 1) was a 1-x-2-m unit placed on the eastern edge of a pile of fragmented brick near the apparent northern margins of the razed main structure area (Figure 8). TU 1 encountered only two strata, a mounded layer of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand and brick fragments that extended to 38 cm below datum (cmbd) in the eastern end of the unit (Stratum I) and a primarily sterile layer of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand (Stratum II) that extended below the base of the unit at 40 cmbd (Figures 9 and 10). Aside from a large amount of brick fragments that were discarded in the field, numerous shards of green-tinted window glass (n=57), iron wire nails (n=14), iron cut nails (n=2), an iron window latch, clear glass lamp chimney fragments (n=11), and a ferrous coin that appears to be a 1943 “steel” penny were recovered from TU 1 (Table 7). The preponderance of architectural materials in TU 1 clearly indicates that the unit was placed in the area of the razed house, but intact brick structure(s) were not found below the surface brick scatter.

58

Figure 8. Detail of 8BY989 site map showing the house location area.

59

Figure 9. Test Unit 1 south wall profile drawing.

Figure 10. Test Unit 1 south wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 2. Test Unit 2 (TU 2) was a 1-x-1-m unit placed in a pile of fragmented brick within the razed main structure area approximately 5 meters southwest of TU 1 (see Figure 8). TU 2 encountered three strata: a 10 to 12 cm thick layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand and brick fragments (Stratum I), another thin layer of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand that extended to between 18 and 27 cmbd (Stratum II), and a layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand (Stratum III) that extended below the base of the unit at 50 cmbd (figures 11 and 12). A large amount of brick and mortar fragments was recovered from Stratum I and discarded in the field. No intact brick structure was encountered in TU 2. Other artifacts recovered include an undecorated whiteware bowl or cup rim fragment, a white glass 4-hole button, numerous sherds of green-tinted window glass (n=141), iron wire nails (n=2), and iron cut nails (n=4). The preponderance of architectural materials in TU 2 clearly indicates that, like TU 1, this unit was placed in the area of the razed structure.

60

Figure 11. Test Unit 2 west wall profile drawing.

Figure 12. Test Unit 2 west wall profile photograph.

61 Test Unit 3. Test Unit 3 (TU 3) was a 1-x-2-m unit placed approximately 20 meters south of the razed structure area and TU 2 in an apparent refuse disposal area (see Figure 8). Like TU 1, TU 3 encountered only two strata, a 30-cm thick layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand (Stratum I) and a primarily sterile layer of mottled yellowish brown (10YR 5/6 and 10YR 4/4) sand (Stratum II) that extended below the base of the unit at 40 cmbd (figures 13 and 14). Stratum I was a midden-like soil rich with organic materials such as charcoal, bone, shell, and domestic artifacts. Despite the recovery of a few artifacts in Level 4 (30-40 cmbd), the unit was terminated at 40 cmbd because it was obvious that the only artifacts present below 30 cmbd were in root disturbed areas, particularly in the southwest corner.

Figure 13. Test Unit 3 south wall profile drawing.

Figure 14. Test Unit 3 south wall profile photograph.

62 A large amount of domestic refuse was recovered from Stratum I, including amber (n=32), amethyst (n=24), aquamarine (n=34), clear (n=81), cobalt blue (n=2), light olive green (n=1), soda-lime (n=5), and white (n=3) bottle and container glass; a variety of whiteware ceramics (n=59); molded porcelain (n=2); yellowware (n=4); stoneware (n=3); clear lamp chimney glass (n=8), and a variety of metal artifacts, such as bottle caps, metal container fragments, and a tin can turn-key opener. Food refuse recovered or observed includes several fragment of large mammal bone (cow?) and several oyster shells that were discarded in the field. Architectural materials recovered include brick fragments (n=23), window glass (n=39), iron wire nails (n=50) and iron cut nails (n=23) and a porcelaneous electric insulator fragment. Personal items recovered are made of brass (n=2), iron (n=1), and white glass 4-hole (n=1) buttons that includes one stamped “Blue Steel”, brass shoe eyelets (n=2), a brass clothing rivet (n=1), a whetstone fragment, and metal pocket knife fragments (n=2). Four artifacts in the Arms Group were also recovered, including a shotgun shell base and three bullet casings of different calibers. The preponderance of Kitchen, Architectural, and Personal Group materials in TU 3 clearly indicates that the unit was placed in a refuse disposal area that had formed a midden-like deposit. The artifact assemblage, which is summarized in (Table 7), is clearly late nineteenth to early twentieth century in character.

Site Evaluation

While it is not certain exactly when the last Gainer homestead was established, no archaeological evidence has been found that site 8BY989 was occupied as early as the 1860s, as some Gainer descendants claim today. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest that a mid-nineteenth-century home site, which may have burned down according to Gainer family members, was located on site 8BY989. In fact, there are only a very few artifacts recovered that could possibly predate the 1880s.

Temporally sensitive historic artifacts recovered include a ceramic assemblage dominated by varieties of whiteware in association with yellowware, porcelain, and stoneware, but no pearlware, salt-glazed or alkaline-glazed stoneware, or other early nineteenth-century ceramics. The presence of amethyst bottle glass and machine-made bottles, particularly the large amount of clear bottle and container glass indicate a post- 1880s occupation. The ratio of wire to cut nails, more than 2:1, also indicates a late- nineteenth-century occupation at the earliest. The majority of artifacts recovered are classified in either kitchen or architectural groups (South 1977) indicative of a domestic structure.

The architectural remains present at 8BY989 indicate that the structure was a wood frame house built on brick pier foundations with at least one brick chimney. The presence of window glass indicates that the structure had glazed windows. A photograph of the 1951 Gainer Family reunion at 8BY989 indicates that the house was indeed, a wood frame house built on brick piers, with clap board siding, brick chimneys (n=2), double-hung windows, and was set in a typical L-shaped configuration (Figure 15). A portion of an outbuilding, said to have been a smokehouse, is also visible in Figure 15. No evidence of intact structural features associated with the main house were observed or encountered on the site. The house was clearly razed with debris piled up toward the

63 northern end of the site. A separate razed structure pile located 10 to 15 m north of the house site is apparently remnants of the smokehouse and possibly a separate barn according to informants. Other features noted on the site (see Figure 8) include a capped metal pipe (wellhead pipe?), an early model electric stove, three buried steel drums that may be part of a septic tank system, and a large hole for which an explanation is not readily apparent.

Figure 15. Photograph taken during the 1951 Gainer Family Reunion at 8BY989. Note the configuration of the house and the smokehouse to the right of (north) of the house. Photograph from Gainer family records, courtesy Addy Ann Christmas.

What is certain about 8BY989 is that it was occupied during the late nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth century and the site is located on land within the homestead patent issued to Edward L. Gainer in 1910. The house site location (Figure 16) is visible in a 1949 aerial photograph of the site area (Figure 17). While no direct evidence of the site occupants was recovered, it is plausible that Edward L. “Lang” Gainer, who was Walter R. Gainer’s youngest son, was the land owner, lived at the homestead, and that he took care of his father (Figure 18) during the last years of his father’s life. Gainer family records indicate that Lang Gainer deeded the property to his second son, J. Martin Gainer, in 1954. As for 8BY989 being the site of the 1860s home of Walter R. Gainer (Figure 19), the lack of physical evidence supporting this theory suggests his homestead was actually located elsewhere, perhaps to the south of 8BY989 in Section 8 on or adjacent to his homestead patent (BLM GLO Records Accession/Serial No. FL0870__.122.). Adam Gainer, born a Gainer slave in 1845 and later known as “Uncle Adam” according to Gainer family records, is listed as the 1891 patentee for two 80-acre parcels in Section 5 located to the immediate south and west of the Edward L. Gainer homestead patent (BLM GLO Records Accession/Serial No. FL0850__.040.). It is reasonable to expect that Adam Gainer would reside near Walter R. Gainer’s home since he was the buggy driver and personal servant to Gainer. This scenario implies that Walter Gainer may not have built the house that was located at 8BY989 until the 1890s, which is a situation consistent with the 8BY989 archaeological evidence.

64

Figure 16. Detail from the 1944 topographic map showing the location of 8BY989.

Figure 17. Detail from a 1949 aerial photograph showing the 8BY989 site location. (Courtesy of Northwest Florida Water Management District).

65

Figure 18. Photograph of Walter Raleigh Gainer, circa 1915 (from Womack 1994:111). This photograph may have been taken at 8BY989.

Figure 19. Drawing of the Gainer home at 8BY989. In Gainer family reunion literature, this drawing has been labeled “W.R. Gainer home, circa 1860” and “the Econfina home built by Walter R. Gainer.” Drawing from Gainer family reunion literature, courtesy Brian Chambless.

66 In terms of the NRHP evaluation of 8BY989, archaeologically the site is representative of a homestead dating to the late nineteenth to early and middle twentieth century in rural northwest Florida. The primary occupational component is the early- to mid-twentieth-century period. While site 8BY989 was recommended as ineligible for individual NRHP nomination by Mikell (2001a) and the current investigation has reached similar conclusions, the site should be considered potentially eligible as part of a multiple property submission of homesteads in the Econfina Creek area. Individually, 8BY989 does not meet NRHP eligibility under Criterion A-C and the site marginally meets the requirements of Criterion D. Taken in the context of the proposed Econfina Settlement Area multiple historic property concept addressed in Chapter 8 of this report , 8BY989 is considered to be a vital contributing element.

8WS514 – The William Gainer and Eugenia O. Gainer Homestead

Site Type: nineteenth-century homestead artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: nineteenth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: Bennett, Fla. 1982, T1N, R13W, Section 28 Elevation: 110-115 ft. (33-35 m) amsl Landform: ridge crest, side slope Soils: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mature and secondary hardwoods and pine, planted cedar NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: eligible individually; potentially eligible as part of multiple property submission

The William Gainer homestead was recorded in 2000 at site 8WS514 as part of the Econfina Creek WMA Phase I survey (Mikell 2001a). 8WS514 is the reported location of the original Gainer homestead, described as consisting of a log cabin and out buildings built by William Gainer, who was an original settler in the area. The homestead was established as early as the 1820s and William Gainer appears on the 1830 Washington County Census records as a “Head of Household” along with other original settlers of the area. BLM GLO records indicate that William Gainer patented several quarter-section parcels in the vicinity of the site, but there is no patent for the 8WS514 location until 1912. In 1912, Eugenia O. Gainer, the wife of William Gainer’s son, Thomas H. Gainer, was issued a patent (sale-cash entry) for the 160 acres in the southeastern quarter of Section 28, where both the homestead and Gainer Family Cemetery are located (BLM GLO Accession/Serial No. 249441).

William Gainer, a surveyor and mathematician, came to the Econfina area in 1824 or 1825 and established his homestead and a large ranch on the west side of Econfina Creek. Gainer had served as a scout and surveyor in the U.S. Army during Andrew Jackson’s 1818 invasion of Florida. It was during his time of service in the U.S. Army in West Florida that Gainer surveyed the Econfina area and determined that he would eventually bring his family back to the area to settle. The Gainer homestead reportedly served as a church and school until both were established within the Econfina community south of the Gainer home place. The Gainer place also served as the area “post office”

67 until the U.S. post office was established in Econfina in 1855. William Gainer patented several tracts of land in the Econfina area beginning in 1837 and is reported to have lived at or near the original Gainer homestead until his death at age 84, in 1870. William Gainer’s son, Thomas Henry, also died in 1870, possibly from long-term complications resulting from wounds received during his service in the Confederate army at the battle of Jonesboro, Georgia, in 1864. The archaeological evidence presented here, indicates that the homestead was abandoned soon thereafter. 8WS514 is situated a short distance east of the Gainer Family Cemetery (8WS515), where William Gainer (1786-1870); his first wife Jane Watts Gainer (1792-1837); his sons William Augustus Gainer (1824-1912), Thomas H. Gainer (1834-1870), and Walter R. Gainer (1836-1920); and Eugenia O. Gainer (1848-1941) were laid to rest.

Site 8WS514 contains a light-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter in addition to the remains of the nineteenth-century Gainer homestead. The historic component is characterized as a high-density scatter of architectural materials and domestic refuse. The site is situated on a level to gently sloping portion of a ridge crest located up slope and generally west of two or more small spring heads that flow into a tributary of Econfina Creek (see Figure 2).

Phase I survey results indicated that numerous historic artifacts and a smaller number of aboriginal artifacts were scattered across the site area and were recovered from nine of the 11 shovel tests excavated (Mikell 2001a). A metal detector survey was also identified concentrations of metal and a “nail field” associated with the house area and associated out buildings. A second metal detector survey completed during the current investigations allowed for firm identification of the location and orientation of Gainer’s house. Large, dead cedar trees appear to mark an entrance to the house and yard area (Figure 20) and crepe myrtle is also plentiful in the homestead area. A row of cedars and large oaks appear to mark a former lane that extends to the east of the homestead area to a springhead where a spring box was apparently located. Leftover planted and ornamental plants that have survived abandonment are often vegetative markers of homestead sites. A metal detector survey of the suspected spring box area confirmed that at least three metal objects (nails?) are buried in the springhead. A second spring box is reported by Gainer family members on the seep spring located south of the homestead area.

Shovel Test Excavation

The Phase I shovel tests provided the following general soil profile for the site: 10-12 cm of grayish brown (10YR5/2) sand (Stratum I), 20 to 25 cm of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sand (Stratum II), 50 to 60 cm of yellowish brown (10YR5/8) sand (Stratum III), and a layer of culturally sterile gray (10YR5/1) sand (Stratum IV) that extended below a meter in depth. A historic midden deposit (Feature 1) was also documented on the site (Mikell 2001a:105). Historic artifacts were generally recovered in Stratum I and II to a depth of 30 to 50 cmbs. A few aboriginal artifacts were also recovered in Stratum II, but most were encountered in Stratum III to a depth of 60 to 70 cmbs. Based on surface materials and positive shovel tests, the site covers an area

68 measuring approximately 125-x-60 m, with the historic component centered on the house site and areas to the east and southeast of it.

Ten additional shovel tests were excavated in the immediate area of the homestead and in areas away from the actual homestead site during the current investigations. The shovel tests were judgmentally placed in areas of special interest defined by previously untested topographic features or metal detector survey results. For example, ST 8 was excavated in an isolated area where numerous metal objects were indicated by the metal detector, STs 2, 3, and 7 were placed in depressions to test for well or privy features, and ST 5 was excavated on a previously untested topographic feature located 40 to 50 m east-southeast of the homestead. The ST 8 area is an apparent outbuilding located east of the house site, but STs 2, 3, and 7 did not encounter features and ST 5 was negative (Figure 20). Table 8 presents a summary of the artifacts and materials recovered during shovel testing and subsequent test unit excavation at 8WS514, and Figures 21 and 22 present photographs of a sample of the artifacts.

69

Figure 20. 8WS514 site map.

70 Table 8. Artifacts Recovered from 8WS514, by Provenience. Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group Gen. Surface 1 Activities iron hoe blade green scalloped edged pearlware, ST 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen plate rim blue hand-painted pearlware, ST 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen plate/bowl body ST 1 I 0-20 1 Personal copper penny, (1995) ST 1 I 0-20 1 Architecture iron cut nail ST 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body ST 2 II 10-30 1 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body medium olive green glass, curved ST 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen bottle body ST 4 II 20-50 1 1/2" chert tertiary flake ST 4 II 20-50 1 Architecture window glass ST 6 I-II 0-40 2 Kitchen undecorated earthenware, body ST 6 I-II 0-40 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, rim iron wood stove door fragment and 3 ST 6 I-II 0-40 4 Furniture associated ferrous metal fragments dark olive green glass, curved bottle ST 6 I-II 0-40 1 Kitchen body ST 6 I-II 0-40 1 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body ST 6 I-II 0-40 1 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body ST 7 I 0-30 2 Kitchen undecorated whiteware blue transfer-print pearlware, 1 body ST 7 I 0-30 2 Kitchen and 1 rim ST 7 I 0-30 1 Kitchen dark olive green glass, case bottle ST 8 I-II 0-40 2 Kitchen undecorated whiteware ST 8 I-II 0-40 1 Kitchen blue hand-painted pearlware, body ST 8 I-II 0-40 2 Architecture brick fragments ST 8 I-II 0-40 4 Architecture iron cut nails dark olive green glass, curved bottle ST 8 I-II 0-40 2 Kitchen body ST 9 I 1 0-20 1 Architecture iron cut nail undecorated whiteware, body , TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen maker's mark "CHINA IRONSTONE" brown and white annular decorated TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen mochaware, cup or bowl body white annular decorated yellowware, TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen body TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen feather-edged pearlware, plate rim TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen undecorated ironstone, body green hand-painted pearlware, body , TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen floral pattern TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen flow blue pearlware, rim annular decorated refined TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 3 Kitchen earthenware, rim, 2 brown and 1 red TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print whiteware, rim TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 4 Architecture fired clay brick fragments TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 34 Architecture iron cut nails

71 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 13 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Activities iron hook and chain TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 residual lead dark olive green glass, case bottle TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen body TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 1 Kitchen clear window glass TU 1 I/Fea. 1 1 0-20 5 Kitchen large mammal bone fragments burned undecorated refined TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 27 Kitchen earthenware, 14 body, 4 base, and 8 rim polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 8 Kitchen body blue feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 2 Kitchen rims green feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Kitchen rim blue transfer-print pearlware, TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 8 Kitchen plate/bowl, 2 rim and 6 body, 2 burned blue and brown annular decorated TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Kitchen pearlware, bowl body undecorated pearlware, blue-glazed TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Kitchen exterior and white-glazed interior, body undecorated pearlware, pink-glazed TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Kitchen exterior and white-glazed interior, body indeterminate polychrome refined TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 2 Kitchen earthenware, body TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 8 Kitchen fired clay brick fragments TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 6 Architecture iron cut nails TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 56 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Personal brass 4-hole button TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 2 Personal white porcelain, 4-hole buttons dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 8 Kitchen body TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Architecture clear window glass soda-lime glass, flanged lip finish TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 Kitchen bottle neck large mammal bone, some appears TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 27 Kitchen charred TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 small conch shell 1" chert tertiary, thermally altered TU 1 Fea. 1 2 20-30 1 flake undecorated refined earthenware, 30 TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 37 Kitchen body and 7 base blue feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 3 Kitchen rims annular decorate pearlware, 1 red TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 4 Kitchen and 3 brown annular banded body blue transfer-print whiteware, bowl TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 2 Kitchen rims blue transfer-print pearlware, TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 7 Kitchen plate/bowl, 2 rim and 5 body

72 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group black transfer-print pearlware, TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 1 Kitchen plate/bowl, rim polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 19 Kitchen floral pattern, 11 body, 1 base, 3 rim red transfer-print pearlware, TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 10 Kitchen plate/bowl, 4 rim and 7 body indeterminate polychrome refined TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 4 Kitchen earthenware, 2 body and 3 rim TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 1 Personal bone, 5-hole button TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 1 Personal brass button with shank TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 1 Architecture iron pot (cauldron) fragment/handle TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 7 Architecture iron cut nails TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 48 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 7 Architecture fired clay brick fragments dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 6 Kitchen body dark olive green glass, applied-tool TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 1 Kitchen finish, bottle neck TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 3 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 112 Kitchen large mammal bone, 74 charred TU 1 Fea. 1 3 30-40 1 small piece of coral TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 3 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 2 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, body undecorated refined earthenware, TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 1 Kitchen body, charred red transfer-print pearlware, TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 2 Kitchen plate/bowl, body blue transfer-print refined TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 1 Kitchen earthenware, plate/bowl, body polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 4 Kitchen floral pattern, body TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 2 Architecture fired clay brick fragments TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 7 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 1 undifferentiated ferrous metal dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 1 Kitchen body TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 1 Personal bone, 5-hole button TU 1 II-III 4 30-40 4 Kitchen indeterminate bone s, 1 charred undecorated refined earthenware, TU 1 Fea. 3 50-90 2 Kitchen body TU 1 Fea. 3 50-90 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 1 Fea. 3 50-90 4 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 Fea. 3 50-90 1 copper strap/wire TU 1 Fea. 3 50-90 3 Kitchen indeterminate bone fragments TU 1 Fea. 3 50-90 4 Kitchen oyster shell TU 1 III 6 60-70 3 ¼” chert tertiary flakes TU 1 III 7 70-80 1 ¼” chert tertiary flake ¼” chert tertiary flakes, 1 thermally TU 1 III 8 80-90 2 altered

73 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group undecorated refined earthenware, 3 TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 6 Kitchen rim and 3 body blue feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 1 Kitchen rim purple hand-painted refined TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 1 Kitchen earthenware, body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print whiteware, body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, body annular decorate pearlware, brown TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 2 Kitchen and blue annular bands TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 1 Kitchen undecorated yellowware, body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 11 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 4 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 1 0-10 11 Kitchen aquamarine glass, curved bottle body undecorated refined earthenware, 5 TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 12 Kitchen rim, 1 base, and 6 body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 1 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body blue feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 3 Kitchen rim TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 1 Kitchen flow blue pearlware, rim annular decorated pearlware, TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 3 Kitchen plate/bowl, brown, black and blue rim blue transfer-print pearlware, TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 4 Kitchen plate/bowl, 2 rim and 2 body polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 4 Kitchen 2 rim and 2 body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 7 Architecture iron cut nails TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 19 Architecture iron cut nail fragments dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 1 Kitchen body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 1 Personal opaque “white” glass, 4-hole button TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 2 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 1 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 1 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 2 Architecture clear window glass TU 2 I/Fea. 1 2 10-20 17 Kitchen large mammal bone, 6 charred TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, base undecorated pearlware, 4 rim and 5 TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 9 Kitchen body undecorated refined earthenware, TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen body blue feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen rim blue edge decorated pearlware, plate TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen rim polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 6 Kitchen body blue transfer-print pearlware, 1 body TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen (guitar player print) and 1 base red transfer-print refined earthenware, TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen body

74 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group brown transfer-print refined TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen earthenware, rim TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen black hand-painted pearlware, rim TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 3 Architecture iron cut nails dark olive green bottle glass, 1 base TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen and 1 curved body TU 2 I-II 3 20-30 23 Kitchen large mammal bone blue hand-painted refined TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 1 Kitchen earthenware, rim red transfer-print refined earthenware, TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 1 Kitchen body TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 1 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body tabular ferrous object (possible wood TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 1 stove housing fragment ) TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 10 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 5 Kitchen indeterminate bone s, 1 charred limestone, unidentified invertebrate TU 2 II-III 4 30-40 1 fossil undecorated pearlware, 1 base and 1 TU 2 III 5 40-50 2 Kitchen body polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 2 III 5 40-50 1 Kitchen floral pattern, body TU 2 III 5 40-50 1 Kitchen red transfer-print pearlware, body TU 2 III 5 40-50 2 Architecture iron cut nail fragments dark olive green glass, heavily TU 2 III 5 40-50 1 Kitchen patinated bottle body TU 2 III 5 40-50 1 1/4" chert, tertiary flake TU 2 III 5 40-50 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd TU 2 III 5 40-50 1 Personal bone, 5-hole button TU 2 III 6 50-60 3 Kitchen charred bone TU 2 III 6 50-60 1 2" chert secondary decortication flake, stoneware, green-glazed exterior and TU 3 I 1 0-10 3 Kitchen interior, body TU 3 I 1 0-10 2 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen blue hand-painted pearlware, rim green shell-edged pearlware, plate TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen rim green transfer-print pearlware, plate TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen rim red transfer-print refined earthenware, TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen body green hand-painted refined TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen earthenware, body TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture fired clay brick TU 3 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 3 I 1 0-10 4 Kitchen aquamarine glass, curved bottle body salt-glazed stoneware, brown-glazed TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen interior and gray-glazed exterior, body undecorated pearlware, 2 rim, 2 base, TU 3 I 2 10-20 13 Kitchen ands 9 body blue transfer-print pearlware, 3 rim TU 3 I 2 10-20 4 Kitchen and 1 body

75 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 3 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen blue shell-edged pearlware, rim polychrome hand-painted refined TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen earthenware, floral pattern, body TU 3 I 2 10-20 4 Architecture fired clay brick fragments TU 3 I 2 10-20 19 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 indeterminate ferrous metal TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Personal indeterminate brass/copper object TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Architecture clear window glass TU 3 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Architecture aquamarine, flat glass (window?) TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen aquamarine, base bottle TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen molded clear, base stemware large mammal bone, 3 charred, 1 cow TU 3 I 2 10-20 10 Kitchen tooth 2” chert unifacial flake tool, heavily TU 3 I 2 10-20 1 patinated TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen undecorated yellowware, body blue hand-painted pearlware, 2 rim TU 3 II 3 20-30 3 Kitchen and 1 body blue transfer-print refined TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen earthenware, plate or bowl, body red transfer-print refined earthenware, TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen body TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 Architecture iron cut nail undifferentiated ferrous metal TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 fragments TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 Personal brass button TU 3 II 3 20-30 8 Kitchen large mammal bone TU 3 II 3 20-30 1 coral TU 3 II 4 30-40 1 Architecture aquamarine, flat glass (window?) TU 3 II 4 30-40 1 ¼” chert tertiary flake TU 3 Fea. 5 30-49 3 Kitchen large mammal long bone fragments TU 3 II 6 50-60 2 ¼” chert tertiary flakes TU 3 II 6 50-60 1 ½” chert secondary decortication flake TU 3 II 7 60-70 1 ¼” chert tertiary, biface thinning flake undecorated pearlware, 1 base, 1 TU 4 I 1 0-10 3 Kitchen body , and 1 rim polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 4 I 1 0-10 2 Kitchen 1 rim , 1 body annular decorated pearlware, gray TU 4 I 1 0-10 2 Kitchen annular bands, 2 rim TU 4 I 1 0-10 16 Architecture iron cut nails TU 4 I 1 0-10 8 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 4 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture ferrous metal strap fragment dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 4 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen body TU 4 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture clear window glass TU 4 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, cup base

76 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group undecorated pearlware, 1 rim, 1 base, TU 4 I 2 10-20 3 Kitchen and 1 body blue transfer-print pearlware, 1 base , TU 4 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen 1 body TU 4 I 2 10-20 11 Architecture iron cut nails TU 4 I 2 10-20 32 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 4 I 2 10-20 1 Architecture iron spike undifferentiated ferrous metal TU 4 I 2 10-20 5 fragments brass shotgun shell , indeterminate TU 4 I 2 10-20 1 Arms stamp amethyst, bottle neck fragment with TU 4 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen flanged lip finish TU 4 I 2 10-20 1 Architecture clear window glass TU 4 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen indeterminate bone fragments TU 4 I 2 10-20 1 Architecture fired clay brick TU 4 II 3 20-30 3 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 4 II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen body TU 4 II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, body TU 4 II 3 20-30 3 Architecture iron cut nails TU 4 II 3 20-30 11 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 4 II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen amber glass, flat container body TU 4 II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body TU 4 II 4 30-40 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, body TU 4 II 4 30-40 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 5 I 1 0-10 3 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 5 I 1 0-10 3 Kitchen 1 rim, 1 body, and 1 base TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen red transfer-print pearlware, body purple transfer-print refined TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen earthenware, body TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture fired clay brick TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 5 I 1 0-10 5 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen molded clear glass, tumbler body TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 5 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen body TU 5 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body polychrome hand-painted pearlware, TU 5 I 2 10-20 6 Kitchen 1 rim, 1 base, and 4 body TU 5 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen red transfer-print pearlware, body blue transfer-print pearlware, 1 base , TU 5 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen 1 body blue feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 5 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen rim green feather-edged pearlware, plate TU 5 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen rim TU 5 I 2 10-20 2 Architecture iron cut nails

77 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Level Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 5 I 2 10-20 12 Architecture iron cut nail fragments dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 5 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen body TU 5 I 2 10-20 2 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body TU 5 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen soda-lime glass, curved bottle body medium olive green glass, curved TU 5 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen bottle body TU 5 I 2 10-20 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd TU 5 I-II 3 20-30 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, body TU 5 I-II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body TU 5 I-II 4 30-40 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 5 I-II 4 30-40 1 Kitchen amethyst glass, curved bottle body undecorated refined earthenware, TU 6 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen body TU 6 I 1 0-10 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 6 I 1 0-10 1 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body TU 6 I 2 10-20 3 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body TU 6 I 2 10-20 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 6 I 2 10-20 5 Architecture iron cut nail fragments dark olive green glass, curved bottle TU 6 I 2 10-20 3 Kitchen body medium olive green glass, curved TU 6 I 2 10-20 1 Kitchen bottle body expended lead bullet fragment, TU 6 I 2 10-20 1 Arms type/caliber not identifiable TU 6 II 3 20-30 2 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, body TU 6 II 3 20-30 1 1/2" chert tertiary flake TU 6 II 4 30-40 1 1" chert tertiary flake

Substantial numbers of historic artifacts (n=1,109) were recovered during shovel testing and subsequent test unit excavation (see Table 8). The types of artifacts and materials recovered are remains expected to be in association with an early- to late- nineteenth-century domestic dwelling and associated outbuildings. Artifacts associated with the Activities, Architecture, Arms, Furniture, Kitchen, and Personal historic artifact groups were recovered (Figure 21), with Kitchen and Architecture Group materials dominating the assemblage. Prehistoric artifacts recovered consist of sand-tempered plain ceramic vessel body sherds (n=2), a chert unifacial flake tool, and a moderate amount of chert secondary decortication (n=1) and tertiary (n=16) debitage (Table 8). Phase I survey investigations also resulted in the recovery of chert debitage (n=8), a chert biface fragment, and an undifferentiated chert stemmed point (Mikell 2001a).

Kitchen Group artifacts are dominated by ceramic vessel fragments and the ceramic assemblage (n=345) is predominantly pearlware (n=204 or 59.1 percent), indeterminate refined earthenware (n=111), whiteware (n=14), stoneware (n=4), and yellowware (n=3). A wide range of pearlware and indeterminate refined earthenware decorated varieties were recovered and the vast majority of the indeterminate refined

78 earthenware is either pearlware are whiteware that could not be distinguished. Glass bottle and container fragments and tableware are also important components of the Kitchen Group assemblage. The Kitchen Group glass assemblage (n=78) is dominated by dark to medium olive green bottle glass (n=34 or 43.6 percent), but soda lime (n=8), aquamarine (n=11), clear (n=6), and amber (n=1) bottle or container fragments and molded clear tableware fragments (n=2) were also recovered. Other Kitchen Group artifacts recovered include animal bone (n=222) and oyster shell (n=5), but it should be noted that 2.2 kg of oyster shell, recovered primarily from test units 1 and 2, was discarded in the field rather than curated.

Architecture Group artifacts include apparent hand-made brick and limestone block fragments (n=22) that are probably fireplace and chimney materials, clear (n=8) and aquamarine (n=2) window glass, square, machine cut or wrought nails and nail fragments (n=367), square cut or wrought spike fragments (n=2), and a ferrous metal strap segment. No wire nails were recovered from 8WS514. The architectural materials are consistent with a log or wood frame structure dating to the early to middle nineteenth- century. The complete absence of wire nails indicates that the Gainer homestead at 8WS514 was abandoned before the widespread use of wire nails in northwest Florida (1880s-1900s).

Arms Group artifacts consist of an unidentifiable expended lead bullet and a brass shotgun shell base that likely post-dates occupation of the site. The Activities Group is made up of an iron hoe blade, a wrought (?) iron hook and chain (Figure 22), and clear oil lamp chimney glass (n=4). Personal Group artifacts include clothing buttons such as 5- hole bone buttons (n=3), white porcelain (n=2), white glass (n=1), and brass (n=1) 4-hole buttons, plain shank brass buttons (n=2), and an unidentified brass or copper object that appears clothing or shoe rivet-like. Furniture Group artifacts include only a partial wood burning stove door and associated fragments (n=4). Indeterminate Group artifacts include unidentified ferrous metal fragments (n=11), a potential wood stove housing fragment, a copper strap fragment, and an unidentified invertebrate fossil, pieces of coral (n=2), and a small fighting conch shell that appear to be curios brought to the site by the homestead occupants.

79

Figure 21. Selected artifacts recovered from 8WS514. Top row: blue feather-edged pearlware, blue edge- molded pearlware (2), annular decorated mochaware; second row: blue transfer-print pearlware; third row: flow-blue pearlware, annular and hand-painted polychrome refined earthenware (pearlware?); fourth row: clear molded glass stemware, applied-tooled dark olive green bottle neck fragment, brass button with shank, brass 4-hole button, hand-made bone buttons; bottom row: porcelain 4-hole buttons.

80

Figure 22. Iron equipment hook and chain recovered from TU 2, 8WS514.

Test Unit Excavation

Six 1-x-2-m test units were excavated at 8WS514. Two of the test units (1 and 2) were excavated in and adjacent to a slightly raised midden pile (Feature 1) identified by Mikell (2001a) as located approximately 10 to 12-m east-southeast of the house site. The remaining four were excavated in the house site area as identified by metal detector survey and shovel testing (see Figure 20). The results of each test unit excavation are described as follows.

Test Unit 1. Test Unit 1 (TU 1) was placed in the central portion of the midden ridge (Feature 1) situated approximately 12 m east-southeast of the house location (see Figure 20). TU 1 encountered three strata, the midden deposit identified as Feature 1, and an intrusive pit feature identified as Feature 3 (Figures 23 and 24). Stratum I was a relatively thin sloping layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) midden deposit that extended to between 10 and 22 cmbd. Stratum I appears to be the upper, root disturbed portion of the Feature 1 midden deposit. Stratum II is an area of brown (10YR 4/3) sand and artifacts confined to the east of the unit between about 10 and 38 cmbd. Feature 1 is a 12 to 25-cm thick layer of black (10YR 2/2) to very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy midden. Stratum III was a largely sterile layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand that extended below the base of the unit at 90 cmbd. Stratum III contained no historic artifacts below 50 cmbd, but chert debitage (n=6) was recovered between 50 and 80 cmbd.

81

Figure 23. Test Unit 1 north wall profile drawing.

Historic artifacts recovered in TU 1 (n=560) include a variety of Kitchen Group artifacts such as ceramic vessel sherds (n=164) dominated by pearlware (n=78) and unidentified refined earthenware (n=77), as well as dark olive green (n=17) and soda- lime (n=1) bottle fragments, an iron pot and handle fragment, animal bone fragments (n=151), and oyster shell. Architecture Group artifacts include brick fragments (n=21), window glass (n=2), cut or wrought nails (n=177) and spike (n=1) fragments. Activities Group materials include lamp chimney glass (n=3) and an iron hook and chain, while six buttons (two bone buttons) make up the Personal Group artifacts (see Table 8). The majority (n=438/78.2 percent) of historic artifacts from TU 1 were recovered from the Feature 1 midden. Only 15 artifacts were recovered from Feature 3, including ceramics, nails, a copper strap fragment, bone, and oyster shell, but the pit contained a substantial amount of wood charcoal. While Feature 3 does not contain a dense deposit of refuse, it does not appear to be a tree root disturbance or recently excavated pit.

82

Figure 24. Test Unit 1 north and west wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 2. Test Unit 2 (TU 2) was placed in the south-central portion of the site, approximately 5 m west of TU 1 (see Figure 20). TU 2 encountered three strata, including a midden deposit associated with Feature 1, a layer of fossil-rich limestone and clay identified as Feature 2, and a post mold feature identified as Feature 4 (Figures 25 and 26). Stratum I was a layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to black (10YR 2/2) midden associated with Feature 1 that extended to 25 to 30 cmbd. Stratum I was deposited on (immediately above) a 5 to 8-cm thick layer of clay and fossiliferous limestone fragments (Feature 2) that is not a natural soil stratum. Feature 2 appears to be a possible clay floor in an outbuilding or the remnants of a clay pile that covered the southern two-thirds of the unit and was patchy in the northern portion of the unit. Stratum II was an area of mottled brown (10YR 4/3) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand that appears to be somewhat associated with Feature 4 and may be an amorphous post hole. Stratum III was a layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand that extended below the base of the unit at 70 cmbd, but was sterile below 60 cmbd. Stratum III contained no historic artifacts below 50 cmbd, but three charred bone fragments and piece of prehistoric chert debitage were recovered between 50 and 60 cmbd. Other prehistoric artifacts from TU 2 consist of additional chert debitage (n=1) and a sand- tempered plain ceramic vessel body sherd from 40-50 cmbd.

A total of 208 historic artifacts was recovered in TU 2, primarily Kitchen and Architecture Group materials. Kitchen Group artifacts include a variety of ceramic vessel sherds (n=75) such as pearlware (n=47), a transfer-print whiteware sherd, a yellowware sherd, and unidentified refined earthenware (n=26) sherds, as well as aquamarine (n=11), amethyst (n=5), dark olive green (n=4) and soda-lime (n=2) bottle fragments, and animal bone fragments (n=48). Window glass (n=2) and cut or wrought nails and nail fragments (n=53) make up the Architecture Group artifacts. Activities Groups materials include lamp chimney glass (n=1) and an apparent wood stove housing fragment (Furniture Group?) and glass (n=1) and bone (n=1) buttons (Personal Group)

83 were also recovered (Table 8). The majority (n=174/83.5 percent) of historic artifacts were recovered from Stratum I and Feature 2.

Figure 25. Test Unit 2 west wall profile drawing.

Figure 26. Test Unit 2 west wall profile photograph.

84 Test Unit 3. Test Unit 3 (TU 3) was placed in the central portion of the site in the house location as defined by the “nail field” indicated by metal detector survey (see Figure 20). TU 3 encountered two soil strata and an apparent diffuse refuse pit identified as Feature 5 (Figures 27 and 28). Stratum I was a layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand and artifacts that extended to between 25 and 33 cmbd. Feature 5 was a somewhat diffuse and amorphous pit feature located in the southwest corner of the unit. Stratum II was a layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand that extended below the base of the unit at 80 cmbd. Stratum II contained only one historic artifact and only a few bone fragments and charred plant remains in Feature 5 below 30 cmbd. In terms of prehistoric artifacts, chert debitage (n=5) and a unifacial flake tool were recovered between 10 and 70 cmbd, but prehistoric materials were recovered primarily between 50 and 70 cmbd.

Historic artifacts recovered in TU 3 (n=107) include Architectural Group materials such as square nails and nail fragments (n=21), brick fragments (n=5), clear (n=1) and aquamarine (n=2) window glass. Kitchen Group artifacts include a variety of ceramics (n=37) including primarily pearlware (n=27/73 percent), unidentified refined earthenware (n=5), green-glazed (n=3) and gray exterior salt-glazed (n=1) stoneware, yellowware (n=1) sherds, aquamarine (n=5), clear (n=2), and soda-lime (n=1) bottle fragments, a clear molded glass stemware base fragment, and animal bone fragments (n=21). Other artifacts recovered include a plain brass button and an apparent brass clothing rivet fragment (Personal Group) and unidentified ferrous metal fragments (n=2) and a piece or coral, which was probably a curio.

Figure 27. Test Unit 3 south and west wall profile drawing.

85

Figure 28. Test Unit 3 south and west wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 4. Test Unit 4 (TU 4) was placed in the central portion of the house area approximately 20 m north-northwest of TU 1 (see Figure 20). TU 4 encountered two strata (Figures 29 and 30). Stratum I was a relatively thin layer of brown (10YR 4/3) sand that extended to between 20 and 25 cmbd. Stratum II was a layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand that extended below the base of the unit at 60 cmbd Stratum II contained no historic artifacts below 40 cmbd and no prehistoric artifacts were recovered in the unit.

A total of 119 historic artifacts was recovered from TU 4, with the majority (n=61) recovered from 10 to 20 cmbd (see Table 8). The unit assemblage includes Architecture and Kitchen Group artifacts that are related to the Gainers’ occupation of the homestead. Architecture Group artifacts include square iron nails and nail fragments (n=82), a square (wrought?) iron spike, a ferrous metal strap fragment, and a small amount of brick (n=1) and clear window glass (n=2). Kitchen Group artifacts consist of a variety of ceramic vessel fragments, primarily pearlware (n=18), but also include whiteware n(=1), dark olive green (n=1), clear (n=2), and amethyst glass (n=1) bottle glass, and a piece of flat amber case (?) bottle glass. Two bone fragments were also recovered in TU 4. Other artifacts recovered include unidentified ferrous metal fragments (n=5) and a brass shotgun shell base with unreadable stamping.

86

Figure 29. Test Unit 4 west wall profile drawing.

Figure 30. Test Unit 4 west wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 5. Test Unit 5 (TU 5) was placed in the southwest-central portion of the site just to the south of the house location area (Figure 20). TU 5 encountered two yellowish brown soil strata (Figures 31-32). Stratum I was a layer of brown (10YR 5/3) sand and artifacts that extended to between 22 and 29 cmbd. Stratum II was a largely sterile layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand that extended below the base of the unit at 50 cmbd Stratum II contained few historic artifacts below 30 cmbd and no artifacts below 40 cmbd.

Historic artifacts recovered in TU 5 (n=57) include a variety of pearlware sherds (n=22) and an unidentified refined earthenware sherd. Other kitchen Group artifacts include a molded clear glass tumbler body fragment and amethyst (n=5), olive green (n=3), and soda-lime (n=2) bottle or container glass. Architecture Group artifacts recovered include square iron nails and nail fragments (n=21) and a brick fragment. A single sand-tempered plain prehistoric ceramic vessel body sherd was also recovered in TU 5, but it was associated with historic materials between 10 and 20 cmbd (seeTable 8).

87

Figure 31. Test Unit 5 east wall profile drawing.

Figure 32. Test Unit 5 east wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 6. Test Unit 6 (TU 3) was placed in the central portion of the house location (Figure 20). TU 6 encountered two sandy strata (Figures 33 and 34). Stratum I was a layer of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand and that extended to between 23 and 30 cmbd. Stratum II was a largely sterile layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand that extended below the base of the unit at 50 cmbd Stratum II contained only two historic artifacts below 20 cmbd and was sterile below 40 cmbd, but chert debitage (n=2) was recovered between 20 and 40 cmbd.

Only 19 historic artifacts were recovered in TU 6 (see Table 8). Artifacts recovered include square iron nails and nail fragments (n=7) in the Architecture Group and undecorated pearlware (n=5) and unidentified refined earthenware (n=1) and olive green (n=4) and clear (n=1) bottle or container glass. The low number and limited variety of artifacts may suggest that TU 6 marks the interior space of the house structure.

88

Figure 33. Test Unit 6 west wall profile drawing.

Figure 34. Test Unit 6 west wall profile photograph.

Site Evaluation

Historic artifacts recovered during Phase I investigation of 8WS514 (Mikell 2001a) included dark and medium olive green and patinated clear glass container or bottle fragments, as well as pearlware, whiteware, coarse earthenware, brown and salt- glazed stoneware ceramics, and faunal remains classified as Kitchen Group materials. Architectural remains such as window glass, small brick and mortar fragments, machine cut and wrought nails, and a limestone brick or block fragment were also recovered during the Phase I survey; along with kaolin tobacco pipe stem and bowl fragments, a skeleton key, barrel hoop fragments, an iron cooking pot fragment (Activities Group), an iron wood-burning stove part (Furniture Group), and unidentified ferrous metal fragments. Along with the Phase 1b testing artifacts describe above, the overall 8WS514

89 artifact assemblage attests to the fact that the Gainer homestead was established in the early portion of the nineteenth century and was abandoned prior to the 1880s.

The architectural remains recovered during both the previous and current investigations at 8WS514 are consistent with the report that the structure was a log house with a brick chimney, although wood frame additions may have been placed on the original structure or it may have been replaced by a wood frame house prior to the 1870- 1880 time range. The presence of only square machine cut or wrought iron nails and nail fragments (n=460), a small amount of window glass (n=13) and brick fragments (n=26) with unattached mortar fragments (n=7) is considered consistent with log structures of the nineteenth-century period, but no evidence of architectural structural features was observed or encountered during either phase of investigation of the site.

Five non-architectural archaeological features have been identified on the site, four during the current investigations. Feature 1 appears to be either a refuse disposal area (midden) or a midden and razed outbuilding. The presence of faunal remains in Feature 1, which includes butchered (n=6) and burned (n=81) cow, large mammal, and indeterminate bone (n=157), fish vertebrae, and oyster shell, tends to indicate that the feature is a refuse disposal area that may have been associated with a smokehouse or refuse burn pile area. The high density of Kitchen (n=395) and Architecture (n=218) Group artifacts recovered from Feature 1 in test units 1 and 2, represents 55.2 percent of the entire current artifact assemblage and suggest that both remnants of an outbuilding and general refuse disposal resulted in the formation of Feature 1. Other features recorded include a large, intrusive refuse pit (Feature 3) that cuts through Feature 1 in Test Unit 1, a lens-like thin layer of clay and fossiliferous limestone that may be remnants of a clay floor (Feature 2) and a posthole/post mold feature (Feature 4) in Test Unit 2, and an amorphous and diffuse refuse pit (Feature 5) in Test Unit 3. A second outbuilding was detected during the Phase Ib investigations in the Shovel Test 8 area.

Aboriginal materials recovered at 8WS514 during both Phase I and Phase Ib include ¼- to 2-inch chert tertiary (n=23) and secondary decortication (n=2) debitage, a chert biface fragment, an undifferentiated stemmed chert projectile point, a bifacial flake tool, and sand-tempered plain ceramic vessel sherds (n=2). The stemmed projectile point resembles specimens of the Savannah River Cluster (Justice 1987), leading Mikell (2001a) to suggest a Late Archaic timeframe for the aboriginal occupation, but the ceramics indicate either a separate unidentified Woodland component or that there was no Late Archaic occupation of the site. In several proveniences, prehistoric artifacts were recovered 20 to 60 cm below historic materials, indicating stratification below the historic occupation zone.

8WS514 is clearly the site of a nineteenth-century homestead associated with the Gainer Family Cemetery (8WS515). Gainer family history places the original homestead of William Gainer at the site in the 1820s and BLM GLO patent records indicate that title to the property encompassing the homestead and cemetery was transferred to Eugenia O. Gainer in 1912. Eugenia O. Gainer was the wife of William Gainer’s son, Thomas H. Gainer, who resided with his father at the homestead until they both died in 1870. Gainer

90 family history indicates that Eugenia O. Gainer left the homestead to live with her sister, Sarah M. Gainer, who was married to William Gainer’s youngest son, Walter R. Gainer, before she moved to the Orange Hill area. It is not clear if the homestead was occupied by another Gainer relative or not, but the archaeological evidence certainly indicates that the homestead was abandoned soon after 1870.

Whether or not the original William Gainer homestead is actually present at site 8WS514 is uncertain, but the artifact assemblage clearly indicates that it could have been. It also seems plausible that the homestead would have been near the agricultural fields that William Gainer owned to the south and east of 8WS514. While there is evidence of early nineteenth-century occupation, no clear-cut evidence that the original homestead is conclusively located at 8WS514 was recovered. If 8WS514 is the original homestead location, the remains associated with slave quarters should be located nearby, unless Gainer had an overseer who lived in proximity to slave quarters located away from the Gainer’s homestead.

As for the NRHP evaluation of 8WS514, the site is representative of a typical homestead dating to the nineteenth century in rural northwest Florida. Although there is an insignificant prehistoric component to the site, the primary occupational component is the early- to mid-nineteenth-century period. The prehistoric component lacks diagnostic artifacts and features that would give it research potential. The historic component of site 8WS514 was recommended as eligible for NRHP nomination by Mikell (2001a) and the current investigation has reached similar conclusions. Phase II testing indicates that intact deposits and features are present and that the site is eligible under NRHP Criterion D. While 8WS514 does not meet NRHP eligibility under Criterion A-C, the site is associated with significant persons and events important to local and regional northwest Florida history.

The site should also be considered eligible as part of a potential multiple property submission of Econfina Creek homesteads. Additional archaeological work should be completed to find the slave quarters location.

91 8WS539 – Porter Lake 3

Site Type: prehistoric lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: undefined, probable preceramic Archaic or Paleoindian USGS Quadrangle Reference: Gap Lake, Fla. 1994, T1N, R13W, Section 9 Elevation: 80 ft. (24-25 m) amsl Landform: point-like terrace on Porter Lake Soils: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: not eligible

Site 8WS539 was selected for testing and evaluation based on the premise that, as a lake shore lithic scatter site it may be a preceramic Archaic or Paleoindian period site. The Phase I survey of the Econfina Creek WMA recorded numerous lake shore lithic scatter sites that included sites with Early Archaic diagnostics and reported Paleoindian component (Mikell 2001a). Site 8WS539 was one of very few lake shore sites that appeared to have survived shoreline erosion and is in an area that contains mature forest vegetation (Figure 35). It was our contention that the wooded portion of the site area might hold intact deposits associated with the surface scatter documented during the previous survey (Mikell 2001a:131-132)

The site is located on a spit of land that appears to be a remnant terrace segment separating the main lower portion of Porter Lake to the south from a seep spring or sink hole pond to the north (Figure 36). During the Phase I survey, 15 pieces of debitage, primarily patinated chert (n=14) and a patinated chert distal biface fragment were recovered along a 250-m long portion of the Porter Lake shoreline (Mikell 2001a). The current investigation was designed to determine whether or not intact deposits were associated with the surface scatter, but the results were quite disappointing.

Figure 35. Photograph of 8WS539 shoreline on Porter Lake; view to the west from the vicinity of Shovel Test 2.

92 Shovel Test Excavation

Twelve shovel tests were excavated in wooded areas adjacent to the shoreline where the surface scatter was recorded in 2000. The surface scatter area was relocated and verified by the recovery of three pieces of chert debitage and a proximal chert biface (stem) fragment. The shovel tests were excavated on a single transect at 20-m intervals. While apparently undisturbed soils were encountered in 10 of the 12 shovel tests, only one, ST 2, resulted in the recovery of cultural materials. ST 2 recovered a single chert tertiary flake (debitage) from between 60 and 70 cmbs (Table 9).

Due to the paucity of cultural materials recovered during the shovel testing phase of investigations at 8WS539, no test units were excavated. The virtual absence of intact cultural deposits on the site indicates that 8WS539 is largely eroded site with little or no archaeological integrity. The meager shovel testing results indicate that the site possess little research potential and is not NRHP eligible.

Table 9. Artifacts Recovered from 8WS539 during Phase 1b Investigations, by Provenience. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) General Surface 1 chert ppk fragment, stem General Surface 2 ½ and 1-inch chert biface thinning flake ST 2 III 60-70 1 ¼-inch chert tertiary flake

93

Figure 36. 8WS539 site map.

Site Evaluation

While site 8WS539 does appear to be the remains of a preceramic Archaic or potentially a Paleoindian site, it is most accurately described as an undefined prehistoric lithic scatter that appears to contain no ceramics. The absence of diagnostic artifacts makes further interpretation extremely difficult at best. The recovery of a chert biface fragment, which is clearly a stem, hints at a Middle to Late Archaic occupation because stemmed bifacial implements (diagnostic points) are more common during the Middle to Late Archaic than during the Early Archaic or Paleoindian periods. The site appears to represent the remains of an extractive camp, which is reflected by the light to moderate density scatter of generally small, tertiary debitage and absence of tools and points. Unfortunately, erosion and deflation have destroyed the research potential of this site and have rendered it not eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion D.

94 8WS581 – The Adams Mill and Homestead Site

Site Type: nineteenth-century mill and homestead remains; prehistoric artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: early to middle-nineteenth-century American; Woodland (Deptford?) USGS Quadrangle Reference: Bennett, Fla. 1982, T1N, R13W, Section 33 Elevation: mill: 60 ft. (18 m); homestead: 90-95 ft. (27-29 m) amsl Landform: ridge crest, side slope, and creek bottom Soils: Lakeland sand, 0-5, 5-8, and 8-12 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: eligible individually; potentially eligible as part of multiple property submission

The Adams mill and homestead site was recorded in 2000 as part of the Econfina Creek WMA Phase I survey (Mikell 2001a). Although the site was accurately interpreted as being an associated nineteenth-century mill remnants and “artifact scatter,” the paucity of artifacts recovered during the Phase I investigations led to a mistaken interpretation of the homestead. Mikell (2001a) described the homestead as a “small barn or warehouse,” but the current investigation clearly documented the remains of an early to mid- nineteenth-century mill and homestead. A prehistoric artifact scatter is also present on the site.

The mill site is situated on a small, spring fed branch that flows from a steephead directly into Econfina Creek, approximately 500 m to west of the site (Figure 2). The unnamed stream cuts through an upper terrace formation, creating a fairly narrow, 30 to 40-ft. deep valley, where remnants of a 10 to 12-ft. high, approximately 20-ft. wide earthen milldam and associated rough-hewn pine mill structure remains are located (Figures 37 and 38). The remnant mill structural elements consist of squared beams, rough-hewn timbers, and boards that were assembled using mortised joints, wooden pegs, and only a few cut or wrought nails and spikes. A metal detector survey of the mill remains resulted it only three “hits,” two of which were visually verified as iron nails. Millstone fragments and sandstone reinforcement blocks were also present in the midst of the mill structure remains. Figure 39 depicts a plan view of the intact structural elements exposed in the stream bottom, as well as the estimated extent of partially exposed individual elements.

The homestead is situated approximately 150 m north and up slope of the dam remnants. The materials recovered during the current investigation indicate that a log or wood frame structure was present (probably the former), which had a brick fireplace and chimney and a limited number of windows (based on the low number of glass shards). Four borrow pits, which were most likely the source of the soil used to construct the dam, are located within 40 m to the north and northwest of the dam (Figure 40). A light- density scatter of prehistoric artifacts is also associated with the homestead area of the site.

Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office (GLO) records indicate that on April 15, 1837, Robert Adams (patentee) applied for a patent and was issued title to

95 the 40 acres encompassing the mill and homestead site, as well as 40 acres located to the west in Section 34 within the Econfina floodplain along the branch where the dam was built (BLM GLO Accession/Serial Nos. FL0110_.296 and FL0110_.297). Based on the GLO records, it is apparent that Robert Adams was the builder and owner of the mill, but no other pertinent records were obtained. Curiously, the name Robert Adams does not appear in the 1830, 1840, 1850, or 1860 Federal census records for Washington County. Robert Adams is, however, described as the overseer of the Joseph Croskey plantation on the Econfina in 1837 in a statement by Marshall for the Middle District of Florida, Samuel H. DuVal (Dodd 1935). Adams is also described in DuVal’s statement concerning Croskey’s apparent involvement in illegal slave trade as living “about a half a mile from the [Croskey’s] plantation.” Croskey patented 80 acres in Section 4, southwest of 8WS581.

Figure 37. Photograph of mill structural remains at 8WS581; view to the north.

Figure 38. Photograph of mill structural remains at 8WS581; view to the east.

96

Figure 39. Plan map of exposed and estimated Adam’s Mill structural remains.

Shovel Test Excavation

A total of 21 shovel tests was excavated at 8WS581 during the Phase Ib work. Three shovel tests were excavated to the south of the mill area, but no historic artifacts were recovered there other than unmodified sandstone associated with the fill used to build up the earthen portion of the mill dam. ST 1, on the south side of the creek and south of the mill dam, recovered a single prehistoric artifact, a small chert tertiary flake. The remaining 17 shovel tests were excavated in the homestead portion of the site north of the mill area.

Shovel testing was conducted in the homestead area for two reasons. First, shovel testing was necessary to relocate the homestead remains area, and second, shovel testing allowed for clear definition of the artifact scatter and an examination of the internal

97 variation present. As depicted in Figure 40, shovel testing identified the main house area (ST 4, ST 7, ST 14, ST 17, ST 19), an apparent out building area south of the house (ST 11), a midden near the house (ST 18), and scattered artifacts north of the house location (ST 8 and 15).

A large number of historic artifacts (n=686) was recovered during shovel testing and subsequent test unit excavation (Table 10). The types of artifacts and materials recovered are remains expected to be associated with an early- to middle-nineteenth- century domestic habitation site or domestic dwelling (Figures 41 through 43). Artifacts associated with the Kitchen, Architecture, Activities, Arms, and Personal groups were recovered. Prehistoric artifacts recovered (Table 10) consist of a single sand-tempered check stamped ceramic vessel body sherd and chert tertiary debitage (n=4).

The Kitchen Group artifacts are dominated by ceramic vessel fragments and the ceramic assemblage (n=268) is predominantly pearlware (n=248 or 92.5 percent). A wide range of pearlware varieties was recovered along with indeterminate refined earthenware (n=13), whiteware (n=3), unidentified pink-glazed earthen ware sherds (n=2), mochaware (n=1), and yellowware (n=1). Glass bottle and container fragments are also an important component of the Kitchen Group assemblage. The Kitchen Group glass assemblage (n=40) is dominated by dark to medium olive green bottle glass (n=27 or 67.5 percent), but light olive green (n=1), soda-lime (n=2), aquamarine (n=4), clear (n=5), and green-tinted (n=1) bottle or container fragments were also recovered. Other Kitchen Group artifacts recovered include ferrous metal utensil handles (n=2), a pewter utensil handle, oyster shell (n=27), and animal bone (n=73).

Architecture Group artifacts include apparent hand-made brick and limestone block fragments (n=67) that are probably fireplace and chimney materials, green-tinted (n=1) and clear (n=6) window glass, an iron door or gate hinge fragment, and square, machine cut or wrought nails and nail fragments (n=122). No wire nails were recovered from 8WS581. The architectural materials are consistent with a log or wood frame structure dating to the early to middle nineteenth-century. The complete absence of wire nails indicates that the homestead at 8WS581 was abandoned before the widespread use of wire nails in northwest Florida (1880s-1900s) and perhaps as early as the 1860s.

98

Figure 40. Sketch map of 8WS581 showing mill and homestead locations.

99 Arms Group artifacts consist of a small gray gunflint and lead shot (n=6). The Activities Group is made up of a clay marble, a kaolin pipe stem fragment, an iron hoe blade, and clear oil lamp chimney glass (n=12). The Personal Group artifacts include clothing and jewelry-related items such as clear (n=1) and blue (n=1) faceted glass beads, a brass costume jewelry ring, brass buttons (n=3), and a brass clothing rivet. The brass buttons include a small back and shank portion of an apparent military uniform button with a “EXTRA RICH” backmark indicating that it is likely a Confederate uniform sleeve or vest button manufactured by the Charles Rowley Company of London (McGuinn and Bazelon 2001). Indeterminate Group artifacts include items that could not be confidently placed in other artifact groups. Items such as unidentified iron or other ferrous metal object fragments (n=12), residual lead (n=4), small clear glass fragments that are either thin (medicinal?) bottle or container fragments or oil lamp chimney fragments, a braided ferrous metal and lead object fragment, a piece of slate that may be a writing board fragment, a brass object that may be part of a clock pendulum, and a fragment of pewter decorated with a floral design.

Table 10. Artifacts Recovered from 8WS581 during Phase 1b Investigations, by Provenience. Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group General dark olive green glass bottle neck, 1 Kitchen Surface applied tool finish ST 2 II-III 60-80 1 0.25" chert biface thinning flake ST 4 I-II 0-50 1 Architecture iron square (cut?) nail ST 4 I-II 0-50 2 Architecture iron square (cut?) nail fragments ST 4 I-II 0-50 3 Architecture brick fragments dark olive green glass, bottle neck ST 4 I-II 0-50 1 Kitchen fragment blue transfer-print pearlware, 1 plate rim ST 4 I-II 0-50 2 Kitchen and 1 plate body ST 4 I-II 0-50 2 Kitchen refined earthenware, vessel body ST 7 I-II 0-40 1 0.25" chert tertiary flake ST 7 I-II 1 Architecture brick fragment ST 7 I-II 2 Kitchen clear glass, bottle body ST 7 I-II 1 Activities clear lamp chimney glass ST 8 I 0-10 1 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, vessel body ST 11 I-II 0-20 2 Architecture iron cut nail fragments ST 11 I-II 1 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, vessel body ST 14 I 0-20 1 Activities iron garden hoe blade ST 14 I 0-20 1 Kitchen red transfer-print whiteware, plate base ST 15 I 0-30 4 Architecture iron cut nail fragments ST 15 I 0-30 1 Kitchen green-tinted flat glass (not window glass) ST 15 I 0-30 1 Kitchen flow blue whiteware, plate base fragment blue and black transfer-print pearlware, ST 15 I 0-30 1 Kitchen plate rim blue annular decorated pearlware, plate ST 15 I 0-30 1 Kitchen rim ST 15 I 0-30 1 Kitchen red hand-painted pearlware, plate body

100 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group ST 15 I 0-30 2 Kitchen refined earthenware, 1 body and 1 base ST 17 I-II 10-30 1 unidentified iron object ST 17 I-II 10-30 5 Architecture brick fragment blue and black hand-painted pearlware, ST 17 I-II 10-30 1 Kitchen plate body fragment undecorated pearlware, 1 plate body ST 17 I-II 10-30 2 Kitchen and 1 ST 18 I-II 5-40 3 Architecture iron cut nails ST 18 I-II 5-40 4 Architecture iron cut nail fragments ST 18 I-II 5-40 5 Kitchen oyster shell fragments ST 18 I-II 5-40 4 Kitchen mammal bone, fragments ST 18 I-II 5-40 5 charred wood ST 18 I-II 5-40 22 Architecture brick fragments ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Activities pewter ornamental object, floral pattern ST 18 I-II 5-40 2 Kitchen dark olive green glass, bottle body green-tinted lamp chimney glass ST 18 I-II 5-40 2 Activities fragments ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Architecture green-tinted window glass ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body aqua marine glass tumbler, base ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Kitchen fragment blue transfer-print pearlware, plate/bowl, ST 18 I-II 5-40 5 Kitchen 3 rim and 1 body blue transfer-print pearlware, fancy ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Kitchen edge- molded plate rim ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Kitchen blue feather-edged pearlware, plate rim blue and green hand-painted pearlware, ST 18 I-II 5-40 3 Kitchen vessel base annular decorated pearlware, blue and ST 18 I-II 5-40 2 Kitchen brown bands, plate/bowl rim undecorated pearlware, vessel base and ST 18 I-II 5-40 9 Kitchen body annular decorated mochaware with ST 18 I-II 5-40 1 Kitchen decorative stamping, brown and blue annular bands, bowl rim ST 19 I 0-20 1 Kitchen oyster shell fragment ST 19 I 0-20 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, cup body ST 19 I 0-20 2 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, bowl body TU 1 I 0-20 3 Architecture iron cut nails TU 1 I 0-20 9 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 I 0-20 1 indeterminate iron object TU 1 I 0-20 1 Personal brass ring, jewelry TU 1 I 0-20 5 Architecture brick fragments TU 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen oyster shell TU 1 I 0-20 5 Kitchen indeterminate bone fragments medium olive green glass, curved bottle TU 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen body TU 1 I 0-20 1 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 1 I 0-20 2 Architecture clear window glass TU 1 I 0-20 2 Kitchen clear glass, curved bottle body

101 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group blue hand-painted pearlware, vessel TU 1 I 0-20 3 Kitchen body blue transfer-print pearlware, 2 rim and 2 TU 1 I 0-20 4 Kitchen body TU 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen green shell-edged pearlware, plate rim TU 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen blue feather-edged pearlware, plate rim brown and blue annular decorated TU 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen pearlware, cup/bowl rim gray and blue annular decorated TU 1 I 0-20 1 Kitchen pearlware, cup/bowl rim black transfer-print pearlware, plate rim TU 1 I 0-20 2 Kitchen and body brown transfer-print pearlware, plate TU 1 I 0-20 4 Kitchen body TU 1 I 0-20 7 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, vessel body TU 1 I 20-30 8 Architecture iron cut nails TU 1 I 20-30 22 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 I 20-30 7 Architecture brick fragments TU 1 I 20-30 2 undifferentiated ferrous metal TU 1 I 20-30 3 Arms lead shot brass clothing buttons, 1 back stamped TU 1 I 20-30 2 Personal with "EXTRA RICH" TU 1 I 20-30 1 residual lead fragment TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen pewter utensil handle fragment TU 1 I 20-30 1 Personal clay marble TU 1 I 20-30 1 Personal kaolin pipe stem fragment TU 1 I 20-30 1 Arms gray gun flint TU 1 I 20-30 6 Kitchen large mammal bone fragments TU 1 I 20-30 1 Personal clear glass faceted bead, jewelry TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen medium olive green glass bottle body TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen soda lime glass, curved bottle body TU 1 I 20-30 3 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 1 I 20-30 2 clear glass fragments TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen oyster shell fragment blue hand-painted pearlware, 1 (3) tea TU 1 I 20-30 21 Kitchen cup rim, 3 base, and 14 body undecorated pearlware, 4 rim and 17 TU 1 I 20-30 21 Kitchen body TU 1 I 20-30 2 Kitchen red transfer-print pearlware, bowl body black transfer-print pearlware, 3 rim and TU 1 I 20-30 8 Kitchen 5 body TU 1 I 20-30 3 Kitchen red hand-painted pearlware, vessel body brown transfer-print pearlware, vessel TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen body pink -glazed earthenware, 1 rim and 1 TU 1 I 20-30 2 Kitchen body green fancy edge-molded pearlware, TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen plate rim TU 1 I 20-30 1 Kitchen green shell-edged pearlware, plate rim TU 1 I 20-30 4 Kitchen blue feather-edged pearlware, plate rim

102 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group blue fancy edge-molded pearlware, plate TU 1 I 20-30 4 Kitchen rim blue transfer-print pearlware, 6 rim and 8 TU 1 I 20-30 14 Kitchen body TU 1 II 30-40 12 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 1 II 30-40 1 Personal brass button, plain TU 1 II 30-40 2 Arms lead shot TU 1 II 30-40 1 residual lead fragment TU 1 II 30-40 1 braided iron and lead object fragment TU 1 II 30-40 2 Architecture brick fragments TU 1 II 30-40 1 Personal blue glass faceted bead, jewelry TU 1 II 30-40 1 Kitchen aqua marine glass, curved bottle body light olive green glass, curved bottle TU 1 II 30-40 1 Kitchen body medium olive green glass, curved bottle TU 1 II 30-40 2 Kitchen body blue fancy edge-molded pearlware, plate TU 1 II 30-40 1 Kitchen rim blue hand-painted pearlware, vessel TU 1 II 30-40 4 Kitchen body blue transfer-print pearlware, vessel TU 1 II 30-40 2 Kitchen body brown transfer-print pearlware, vessel TU 1 II 30-40 1 Kitchen body brown and blue annular decorated TU 1 II 30-40 1 Kitchen pearlware, vessel rim undecorated pearlware, cup handle TU 1 II 30-40 1 Kitchen fragment TU 1 tree root 40-50 1 Arms lead shot TU 1 tree root 40-50 1 Kitchen clear lamp chimney glass blue and green hand-painted pearlware, TU 1 tree root 40-50 2 Kitchen body TU 2 I 0-10 3 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 2 I 0-10 1 Kitchen oyster shell TU 2 I 0-10 1 Architecture clear window glass medium olive green glass, curved bottle TU 2 I 0-10 1 Kitchen body dark olive green glass bottle base, dip- TU 2 I 0-10 1 Kitchen molded TU 2 I 0-10 1 Kitchen brown transfer-print pearlware, body TU 2 I 0-10 1 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, base TU 2 II 10-20 1 0.5" chert biface thinning flake TU 2 II 10-20 1 Architecture iron cut nail TU 2 II 10-20 4 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 2 II 10-20 1 Kitchen ferrous utensil handle TU 2 II 10-20 3 undifferentiated ferrous metal indeterminate brass object (possible TU 2 II 10-20 1 clock pendulum fragment) TU 2 II 10-20 2 Kitchen oyster shell fragments TU 2 II 10-20 1 Kitchen mammal tooth (probable cow) TU 2 II 10-20 3 Architecture brick fragments

103 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group blue transfer-print pearlware, 1 fancy TU 2 II 10-20 2 Kitchen edge-molded vessel rim and 1 base black transfer-print pearlware, vessel TU 2 II 10-20 3 Kitchen body brown transfer-print pearlware, 1 fancy TU 2 II 10-20 4 Kitchen edge plate rim , 2 body, and 1 base blue and green hand-painted pearlware, TU 2 II 10-20 1 Kitchen vessel rim undecorated pearlware, 6 vessel body TU 2 II 10-20 8 Kitchen fragments, 1 rim fragment, and 1 base TU 2 II 20-30 3 Architecture iron cut nails TU 2 II 20-30 6 Architecture iron cut nail fragments indeterminate tabular ferrous object TU 2 II 20-30 1 (possible wood burning stove fragment) TU 2 II 20-30 1 Personal brass clothing rivet TU 2 II 20-30 6 Kitchen indeterminate animal bone fragments TU 2 II 20-30 1 Kitchen indeterminate shell fragment TU 2 II 20-30 1 Architecture brick fragment TU 2 II 20-30 3 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, body brown transfer-print pearlware, 2 vessel TU 2 II 20-30 3 Kitchen body and 1 base green, pink and blue hand-painted TU 2 II 20-30 2 Kitchen pearlware, vessel body fragments TU 2 II 20-30 1 Kitchen blue hand-painted pearlware, body undecorated pearlware, 6 vessel body TU 2 II 20-30 7 Kitchen and 1 rim TU 2 II 20-30 1 Kitchen undecorated yellowware, vessel body indeterminate burned refined TU 2 II 20-30 1 Kitchen earthenware, body TU 2 II 30-40 1 ferrous strap or brace fragment sand-tempered check stamped, body TU 2 II 40-50 1 sherd TU 3 I 0-10 1 Architecture clear window glass TU 3 I 0-10 1 Architecture brick fragment TU 3 I 10-20 1 Architecture clear window glass TU 3 I 10-20 1 Kitchen blue transfer-print pearlware, body TU 3 I 10-20 2 Kitchen undecorated pearlware, vessel body TU 3 II 20-30 1 0.5" chert biface thinning flake TU 3 II 20-30 1 Architecture clear window glass blue transfer-print pearlware, fancy TU 3 II 20-30 1 Kitchen edge-molded plate rim TU 4 I 0-27 12 Architecture iron cut nails TU 4 I 0-27 23 Architecture iron cut nail fragments TU 4 I 0-27 1 Kitchen ferrous utensil handle TU 4 I 0-27 1 Architecture iron door or gate hinge TU 4 I 0-27 2 undifferentiated lead fragments TU 4 I 0-27 3 undifferentiated ferrous metal soda lime glass, small bottle or vial base TU 4 I 0-27 1 Kitchen fragment, empontiled TU 4 I 0-27 17 Kitchen medium olive green glass, bottle body

104 Historic Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Artifact Description (cmbs) Group TU 4 I 0-27 2 Kitchen aqua marine glass, curved bottle body TU 4 I 0-27 2 clear glass fragments TU 4 I 0-27 6 Activities clear lamp chimney glass TU 4 I 0-27 11 Kitchen oyster shell, 2 complete TU 4 I 0-27 17 Architecture brick fragments blue transfer-print pearlware, 2 rim, 2 TU 4 I 0-27 9 Kitchen fancy edge-molded. Plate rim, 5 body TU 4 I 0-27 2 Kitchen black transfer-printed pearlware, body brown transfer-print pearlware, 1 fancy- TU 4 I 0-27 6 Kitchen edged plate rim, 1 bowl rim , 2 body , 1 base blue hand-painted pearlware, 1 bowl TU 4 I 0-27 7 Kitchen base , 2 vessel base, and 4 vessel body (1 body with small flower stamp) green hand-panted pearlware, 1 vessel TU 4 I 0-27 4 Kitchen rim and 3 body green and blue hand-painted pearlware, TU 4 I 0-27 2 Kitchen 1 vessel and 1 body blue and red hand-painted pearlware, TU 4 I 0-27 1 Kitchen vessel rim TU 4 I 0-27 1 Kitchen annular decorated pearlware, body TU 4 I 0-27 4 Kitchen blue edge decorated pearlware, rims TU 4 I 0-27 1 Kitchen blue shell edge pearlware, vessel rim undecorated pearlware, 14 vessel body, TU 4 I 0-27 22 Kitchen 5 rim, and 3 base burned transfer-printed refined earthen- TU 4 I 0-27 4 Kitchen ware, 1 plate base, 1 fancy edge plate rim, 1 vessel body, and 1 vessel rim TU 4 I 0-27 4 Kitchen burned plain refined earthenware, body TU 4 I 0-27 1 slate, possible writing board fragment bone: fish (9), bird 5), mammal (37), 32 TU 4 I 0-27 51 Kitchen are burned

105

Figure 41. Dark olive green bottle fragments recovered from 8WS581: applied-tooled finish neck fragment, dip-molded bottle base fragment.

Figure 42. Selected ceramics recovered from 8WS581. Top row: hand-painted pearlware; second row: brown transfer-print pearlware; third row: blue transfer-print pearlware; bottom row: blue transfer-print pearlware (2), red transfer-print pearlware, green shell-edged pearlware, green molded edge pearlware.

106

Test Unit Excavation

Four test units were excavated at 8WS581. Of the four units, three (TUs 1 through 3) were 1-x-2-m units and one (TU 4) was a 1-x-1-m unit (see Figure 40). Each of the units recovered artifacts associated with the homestead, with TU 1 resulting in the highest-density recovery associated with the domestic structure itself and TU 4 encountering a midden deposit adjacent to the apparent house site.

Test Unit 1. Test Unit 1 (TU 1) was placed in the central portion of the homestead site on a small mounded area (see Figure 40). TU 1 encountered only two strata, a sloping layer of dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand and a dense deposit of artifacts that extended to between 36 and 39 cmbd (Stratum I) and a layer of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6 to 4/4) sand (Stratum II) that extended below the base of the unit at 60 cmbd (Figures 44 and 45). Stratum II was sterile below 50 cmbd. Artifacts recovered in TU 1 (n=239) include a variety of pearlware vessel sherds (n=116), bottle fragments (n=8), brick fragments (n=12), window glass (n=2), cut or wrought nails (n=54), lamp chimney glass (n=5), a gunflint and lead shot, a clay marble, a kaolin pipe stem fragment, a pewter utensil handle, brass clothing buttons (n=3), and jewelry consisting of two faceted glass beads and a brass ring (see Table 10). The preponderance of architectural and domestic (Kitchen Group) materials associated with Activities, Arms, and Personal Group artifacts in TU 1 potentially is indicative of a razed house area and abrupt abandonment may be indicated by the wide variety of artifacts recovered, particularly personal items such as jewelry.

107

Figure 43. Selected artifacts recovered from 8WS581. Top row: brass shank buttons (3), blue glass faceted bead, white glass faceted bead, brass ring; second row: kaolin smoking pipe stem fragment, clay marble; third row: brass clock pendulum or hand fragment (?), gunflint, lead shot (2), braided brass or copper and iron object fragment; bottom row: pewter utensil fragment, ferrous metal utensil handles (2).

108

Figure 44. Test Unit 1 west wall profile drawing.

Figure 45. Test Unit 1 west wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 2. Test Unit 2 (TU 2) was placed approximately 5 m to the southeast of TU 1 in the central portion of the homestead site (see Figure 40). TU 2 encountered three strata, a thin layer of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand extending to between 10 to 15 cmbd (Stratum I), a layer of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6 to 4/4) sand (Stratum II) that extended to between 30 and 40 cmbd, and a layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sand (Stratum III) that extended below the base of the unit at 60 cmbd (Figures 46-47). Stratum III was sterile below 50 cmbd. A total of 92 artifacts was recovered in TU 2 (see Table 10).

Recovered items include a variety of pearlware vessel sherds (n=36), a yellowware sherd, dark olive green bottle fragments (n=2) that include a dip-molded bottle base fragment, brick fragments (n=4), window glass (n=1), cut or wrought nails (n=17), a possible wood stove part, a ferrous metal utensil handle, a brass clothing rivet,

109 and a brass object that may be a clock pendulum fragment. Faunal remains, including a cow tooth and unidentified large mammal long bone fragments and oyster shell (n=4), were also recovered, as were a sand-tempered check-stamped prehistoric ceramic vessel body sherd and a chert tertiary flake. The TU 2 artifact assemblage indicates that the unit was situated in the immediate vicinity of, but not on the house area.

Figure 46. Test Unit 2 south wall profile drawing.

Figure 47. Test Unit 2 south wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 3. Test Unit 3 (TU 3) was placed approximately 6 m to the east- northeast of TU 1 in the central portion of the homestead site (see Figure 40). TU 3 encountered two strata, a layer of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand extending to 20 to 27 cmbd (Stratum I) and a layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand (Stratum II) that extended below the base of the unit at 50 cmbd (Figures 48 and 49). Stratum II was

110 sterile below 40 cmbd. Only nine artifacts were recovered in TU 3 (see Table 10), including a single brick fragment, window glass (n=3), pearlware vessel fragments (n=4), and a chert tertiary flake. The TU 3 artifact assemblage, like that of TU 2, indicates that the unit was situated in the immediate vicinity of, but not on the house area.

Figure 48. Test Unit 3 east wall profile drawing.

Figure 49. Test Unit 3 east wall profile photograph.

Test Unit 4. Test Unit 4 (TU 4) was placed 12 m southwest of TU 1 on the apparent periphery of the homestead site (see Figure 40). TU 4 encountered two strata, on of which was a midden deposit. Stratum I was a layer of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) midden soil and artifacts extending to between 23 to 30 cmbd. Stratum II was a largely sterile, sub-midden layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) that extended below the base of the unit at 40 cmbd (Figures 50 and 51). Stratum II was sterile below 30 to 32 cmbd. A total of 224 artifacts was recovered in TU 4 (see Table 10). Recovered items include a variety of pearlware vessel sherds (n=59), various types of glass container or bottle

111 fragments (n=20), a ferrous metal utensil handle, lamp chimney glass (n=6), a possible slate writing board fragment, brick fragments (n=17), window glass (n=1), cut or wrought nails (n=35), and faunal remains such as oyster shell (n=11) and burned (n=32) and unburned (n=19) animal bone. Vertebrate faunal remains include fish (n=9), bird (n=5), and mammal (n=37) bone fragments.

Figure 50. Test Unit 4 west wall profile drawing.

Figure 51. Test Unit 4 west wall profile photograph.

Site Evaluation

During the Phase I survey, Mikell (2001a) reported recovering whiteware (n=1), dark olive green bottle glass (n=2), and rough-hewn pine timbers in associated with the milldam, as well as fancy edge decorated whiteware (n=1), blue transfer-print (n=2) and edge decorated (n=1) pearlware, gray salt-glazed stoneware (n=1), white glazed/red bodied refined earthenware, dark olive green glass bottle fragments that include an

112 applied tool finish neck fragment, and oyster shell. Artifacts associated with the aboriginal component included clear quartz (n=1) and chert (n=1) debitage, sand- tempered plain pottery (n=1), and sand-tempered check-stamped pottery (n=1). The Phase Ib results mirror the Phase I findings, but by way of a much larger sample and better documentation, Phase Ib results clearly indicate that an early- to mid-nineteenth- century homestead was also present north of the mill site. The proximity of the mill and the homestead, as well as the apparent temporal association of each component, suggest that Robert C. Adams, was the landowner, homesteader, and possibly the mill operator.

The homestead remains are typical of a nineteenth-century rural domestic dwelling site with an associated midden and associated outbuildings. The ceramic assemblage is completely dominated by pearlware (92.5 percent) and the glass bottle and container assemblage is dominated by dark to medium olive green bottle glass (67.5 percent). Other Kitchen Group artifacts recovered include ferrous metal utensil handles, a pewter utensil handle, oyster shell, and animal bone. Vertebrate faunal remains are predominantly large mammal bone, include cow teeth and bones, but unidentified bird bone and fish bones were also identified. A single species of freshwater fish was identified from vertebrae recovered, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Architectural materials are indicative of a log or wood frame house and include brick and limestone block fragments, window glass, an iron door or gate hinge fragment, and square, machine cut or wrought nails and nail fragments, with no wire nails were recovered. The Shovel Test 11 area appears to represent an out building where nails and a scatter of other artifacts are situated in a context separated from the main house by an area devoid of artifacts. The wide range of artifacts recovered may indicate that the homestead was abruptly abandoned. There is no evidence of a calamity such as the structure burning down, but numerous personal artifacts, including jewelry, became part of a dense deposit of domestic and architectural remains confined to a small area.

The character and size of the mill foundation remains indicate that the mill structure most likely a “tub mill” with its water wheel inside the building itself. The wheel was placed in a tub to cut down on the waste of water and was mounted on the same shaft as the turning runner millstone. The water was funneled through a flume to the blades on the water wheel and the sheer force of the moving water made the wheel turn (Figure 52). The main shaft and the runner millstone mounted on it turned at the same speed as the water wheel. Tub wheels were comprised of wooden paddles or “floats” mortised tightly into the lower end a vertical wheel shaft. They were commonly between 3-6 feet in diameter, with an estimated efficiency of only about 10 percent. A typical tub mill structure measured about 12 by 14 feet (Evans 1795). The mill structure at 8WS581 appears to be approximately 15 by 18 feet in size with the long axis parallel to the creek. A tub mill structure is consistent with the abrupt left (southerly) turn in the creek. The tub wheel would have been at the turn in the creek, which is where mill stone fragments were found during the current investigations (see Figure 39). The most likely alternative to a tub wheel mill would have been an undershot wheel mill similar to that depicted in Figure 53, but a tub or horizontal wheel mechanism would be the best alternative for the small stream where 8WS581 is located and would have eliminated the need for metal gears required by vertical water wheels.

113

During Phase Ib investigation evidence that the mill burned was observed. This evidence was in the form of two upright (vertical) mortised pine timbers with what are presumed to be burned upper ends and board fragments unearthed during clean up for documentation that have burned edges. It is unlikely that these wood structural elements were burned during a forest fire because they were situated either in the water or in water-saturated sand.

Figure 52. Illustration of a tub wheel mill mechanism (from Evans 1785).

Evidence that the mill burned and that the homestead was abandoned, perhaps abruptly, by as early as the 1860s may be related to the Civil War. A Union raid into the Econfina area in 1864 is recorded as having a profound impact on the area’s rural economy. In a report by Captain Henry W. Bowers, Assistant Adjutant General from Key West, describing a nine day raid in July 1864 by troops form the 2nd Florida Cavalry and the 2nd US Colored Troops, it is indicated that “The expedition marched 44 miles into the interior [from St. Andrews], burnt 80 bales of cotton, 2 large bridges, 1 large grist- mill (emphasis added), 1 camp with store-houses, etc., complete, capable of containing 500 men” (West 1922:92). It is unsubstantiated, but possible, that the burned mill referred to was the Adams Mill, an intriguing prospect given the potential for abrupt site abandonment and the possible presence of a Confederate solider (or at least a uniform) in the house during a raid. If Union troops used the Apalachicola to Mariana road that ran south to north along the east side of Econfina Creek (Figure 54), they would have been in proximity to 8WS581.

114

Figure 53. Illustration of the interior components of a water-powered grist mill (Hazen 2006).

It should also be noted that an old east-west roadbed situated immediately north of the site is in the general vicinity of where nineteenth-century maps, such as the John L. Williams 1827 Map of West Florida, depict the old Pensacola to Tallahassee Road. The roadbed could be remnants of this major mid-nineteenth-century road and the location of the mill near such an important transportation route would be advantageous.

115

Figure 54. Econfina Settlement area portion of the 1837-1838 Apalachicola to Marianna Road showing the location of Blue Springs and 8WS581. (Courtesy Bay County Historical Society).

116 In terms of the NRHP evaluation of 8WS581, the site is an excellent example of a typical homestead and a wood frame mill structure dating to the early- to middle- nineteenth-century in rural northwest Florida. A light density scatter of prehistoric Woodland artifacts is also present on the site, but the primary component is the nineteenth-century homestead and mill. Site 8WS581 was determined to be potentially eligible for NRHP nomination by Mikell (2001a) and the current investigation has clearly concluded that the site is eligible.

Phase II testing indicates that intact deposits and features are present and that 8WS581 is eligible under NRHP Criterion D. While 8WS581 does not meet NRHP eligibility under Criterion A-C, the site is associated with significant persons and events important to local and regional northwest Florida history. The site should also be considered in the context of the Econfina Settlement Historic District. PCI recommends the District consider means of preservation of the 8WS581 mill remains and protecting the site from looters and further erosion.

CARTER TRACT SURVEY

Introduction

The Carter Tract is essentially 2,155 acres of upland sand hills surrounding a portion of Pine Log Creek, Greenhead Branch, Dry Lake, Green Lakes, Black Pond, Deep Edge Pond, Dykes Mill Pond, and several unnamed sink holes and smaller ponds. A variety of environmental variables are present within the tract and essentially any fairly level high ground near any of the water sources in the tract is a high probability area (HPA) for the occurrence of prehistoric or historic archeological sites. Because the Carter Tract contains numerous roads, trails, borrow pits, and firebreaks that cross HPAs and offer excellent ground exposure due to sheet erosion, the majority of the reconnaissance-level survey was conducted by way of surface searches and collection augmented with shovel testing. Samples of HPAs with little or no suitable ground exposure present were also shovel tested. The reconnaissance survey of the Carter Tract resulted in the recordation of 32 sites, 8WS468-473 and 8WS1006-1031 (see Figure 4). Each site investigated is described below.

Historic settlement and use of the Carter Tract area appears to be limited to the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The timber and turpentine industries (Figure 55) were driving economic factors associated with rural development along with livestock production (cattle and hogs). Although there were other homesteaders in the area, the James G.W. Dykes, Elizabeth Dykes, James F. Carter, Lewis E. Carter, and Benjamin F. Carter families figured prominently in the history of the Carter Tract area.

The Dykes and Carter families began homesteading the Carter Tract area in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The earliest homestead or cash entry patents within the Carter Tract were issued in 1905 to James G. Dykes for the Dykes Mill Pond area, Elizabeth Dykes for the southwest quarter of Section 8, Shade A. Dykes for the eastern

117 half of Section 6 east of the Carter Tract, and Benjamin F. Carter for the southwest quarter of Section 12, including the southwestern portion of the Carter Tract. Other patents in and adjacent to the Carter Tract include those issued to John D. Dykes (1906), George A. Cook (1908), Francis Carter and Arthur Chestnut (1910), Charlie Sykes (1911), Joseph Garrett (1916), and David N. Dykes (1933). James F. Carter (1900) and Lewis E. Carter (1911) were also issued homestead patents in Section 20 to the south of the Carter Tract. In the 1950s and 1960s, Fitzhugh Carter, a retired school teacher from nearby Vernon, Florida, began purchasing these properties and established a “fishing ranch” (Tennis 1960).

Figure 55. Photograph of turpentine being collected from pine trees in northwest Florida (from Mikell et al. 2003:70)

Although Carswell (1991) clearly indicates that the Dykes family of Greenhead was important in the area’s history, he gives few useful facts about the Dykes and the location of their homestead. Carswell simply refers to the homestead as being near Dykes Mill Pond. In the context of recounting the story of the murder of John David Dykes in 1916, Carswell (1991:274) describes the Dykes family as follows:

….His father, G.W. Dykes, was a millwright. He had moved with his family in the late 1800s into the Greenhead area. He joined his sons there in building two grist mills and a saw mill. The family home was near Dykes Mill Pond, a landmark that retained its identity in 1989. They acquired land in Washington and nearby counties, where they built mills for others. …. The G.W. Dykes family included seven sons and eight daughters.

Carswell (1991) offers no other information about the location of family home sites or the mill(s) for which Dykes Mill Pond is apparently named. Carswell (1991:274) lists the

118 names of G.W. Dykes’ children, including son Shade A. Dykes and daughter Elizabeth (Dykes) Parrish, but does not list a James G. Dykes. It appears that James G.W. Dykes and James G. Dykes are the same person. As noted above, the 1905 James G. Dykes homestead patent for 160 acres includes all of the Dykes Mill Pond (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL1090_.178).

Site Descriptions

8WS468

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland; Late Weeden Island USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Sections 6 and 7 Elevation: 80 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: side slope along Pine Log Creek at and below Dykes Mill Pond Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek /<50 m east to southeast Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS468 (Figure 56) consists of a diffuse, shallow scatter of prehistoric lithic and ceramic artifacts situated in close proximity to 8WS469 (see Figure 4). The site was recorded by Cockrell and Morrell (2005) and described as an eroded prehistoric artifact scatter that included Weeden Island ceramics and lithic artifacts. Cockrell and Morrell (2005) recommended 8WS468 for formal Phase I survey. PCI subsequently revisited the site during the current survey of the Carter Tract and collected additional prehistoric artifacts from surface contexts.

Figure 56. Photograph of the original recorded location of 8WS468, view to the southeast toward Pine Log Creek.

119

Cultural materials recovered from 8WS468 during our revisit are summarized in Table 11 and include a sand-tempered fingernail punctated sherd, an undifferentiated stemmed chert point, and chert debitage. Based on this limited data and the previous survey information, 8WS468 is considered the remnants of a small Weeden Island occupation and 8WS469 is the remains of the Dykes Mill complex described by Cockrell and Morrell (2005). Site 8WS468 was not formally evaluated during either the previous or current investigations.

Table 11. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8WS468. State Depth Site Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) Number point/biface, chert, undifferentiated 8WS468 General Surface n/a n/a 1 stemmed, thermally altered 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8WS468 General Surface n/a n/a 1 thermally altered 8WS468 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered punctated, body sherd

8WS469

Site Type: historic water-control station (dam, gate, spillway, and bridge) Cultural Affiliation: middle-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Sections 6 and 7 Elevation: 75 ft. amsl Landform: Pine Log Creek at lower end of Dykes Mill Pond Nearest water source: Dykes Mill Pond and Pine Log Creek Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 5-8 percent slopes, Pottsburg sand Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

8WS469 was previously defined as the Dykes Mill site (Cockrell and Morrell 2005). The site was described as including structural elements associated with Bridge 4 thought to be mill dam and gate structures, and a grain hopper, a pitcher pump well head, and artifact scatter located within 40-m of the bridge to the northwest (Figure 3). Cockrell and Morrell (2005:18) described the potential mill remnants as follows:

…. The mill appears to have been built in at least two stages, as the portion under the bridge appears to be coursed concrete, while a section of wall (downstream, northwest side) has laid cinder block at the top edge. While the structure is gone, and wooden bridge(s) have been built across the mill structure, that portion remaining, of iron reinforced concrete, some blockwork, and some remaining timbers that may date to a use period, appear to of local and possibly regional significance, as representative of a once-significant part of the regional culture.

120

Cockrell and Morrell (2005) suggested that 8WS469 was the site of at least one of the three Dykes mills described by Carswell (1991). Carswell does not specifically identify the location of the mills and does not describe them in the context of Dykes Mill Pond (1991:274).

The current investigation reached dramatically different conclusions, however. The structural elements associated with Bridge 4 do not appear to represent the remnants of a late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century mill. All of the wooden beams, boards, and timbers are clearly milled cypress joined by nails and bolts or cemented in place with concrete (Figures 57 through 59). There are no mortise-jointed timbers or beams, which are common to nineteenth-century mills in northwest Florida (Mikell et al. 2004; Phillips 1996), present at 8WS496. Despite the fact that the site is in a prime location, there were no artifacts recovered from either surface contexts or shovel test in the immediate vicinity of 8WS469 to suggest that the site was the former location of the Dykes Mill.

The 8WS469 structure, with its coursed concrete, cinder block, and iron reinforced upright wood beam construction appears to be quite similar to water control structures built by Fitzhugh Carter in the 1950s and 1960s elsewhere in the Carter Tract (Figure 60). A corresponding concrete structure without the upright components was recorded as part of site 8WS1031 (see below) on the south side of Black Pond less than one-half mile from 8WS469.

The “grain hopper” identified by Cockrell and Morrell (2005) is a self-contained water tank complete with a faucet valve and tar-sealed riveted section seams (Figure 61). The pitcher pump wellhead (Figure 62) located less than 20 m northeast of the water tank is not necessarily associated with 8WS469 either. The well head is inscribed with “Dempster Mill MFG Co Beatrice, NEB. No. 12” and is apparently part of a Dempster model number 12 Windmill, which was manufactured beginning in 1927 (Dempster Mill History, http://www.spearman.org/Dempsterhistory.html).

121

Figure 57. Photograph of the north side of 8WS469, view to northwest. Note the concrete buttress and foundation that extends below the majority of the structure, including the horizontal planks shown here beyond the concrete buttress and dam wall segment.

Figure 58. Photograph of the north side of 8WS469, view to southwest from the floodplain north of the dam.

122

Figure 59. Photograph of the north dam wall of 8WS469 and Bridge 4 platform, view to southeast from the northwest edge of the dam structure.

Figure 60. Photograph of Fitzhugh Carter during construction of a water control station, possibly at Dykes Mill Pond (from Tennis 1960:25).

123

Figure 61. Photograph of the water tank located northwest of 8WS469, view to the northeast.

Figure 62. Photograph of the wellhead pump located northwest of 8WS469, view to the north. Inscription reads “DEMPSTER MILL MFG CO. BEATRICE, NEB. NO.12”.

The artifact scatter located to the west and northwest of Bridge 4, including the water tank and well pump area, are apparently associated with the James G. Dykes homestead site, 8WS1024, described below. The water tank and well pump appear to be either associated with 8WS1024 or Fitzhugh Carter’s activities since there is no evidence of a mill at 8WS469. It is certainly possible that Carter completely destroyed the mill site during construction of his canal and water control stations along the west and northern margins of Dykes Mill Pond, but it seems unlikely that no evidence would remain at the

124 site. Given the lack of evidence for the presence of Dykes Mill at site 8WS469, it would seem prudent to describe the site in terms of what has been documented there - a bridge built on top of one of Fitzhugh Carter’s water-control stations. 8WS469 was not evaluated during the current survey, but it does not appear to meet NRHP criteria for eligibility

8WS470

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland (probable Deptford or Weeden Island) USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 90 to 100 ft. amsl Landform: Ridge toe landforms on either side of Greenhead Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Greenhead Branch /<20 m north and south Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine, partially cleared NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS470 is a set of disturbed aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatters situated on ridge toe landforms to the north and south of Greenhead Branch (see Figure 4). Like 8WS468/8WS469, this site was recorded just prior to PCI’s survey of the Carter Tract by Cockrell and Morrell (2005). Because the artifact scatters are situated on distinct landforms separated by Greenhead Branch and because there is no concrete evidence to link the artifact scatters temporally, it is our opinion that they should have been recorded as separate sites. Throughout the remainder of this report, these spatially distinct artifact scatters will be referred to as follows: 8WS470A is located south of Greenhead Brach and 8WS470B is located on the north side. During our revisit of the site area, surface artifacts were collected from the borrow pit area and road on 8WS470A (Figure 63), while no artifacts were observed or collected from 8WS470B.

Materials collected during the current survey (summarized in Table 12) include a chert biface (preform) fragment, a chert core fragment, chert debitage, and a sand- tempered, simple-stamped vessel body sherd. While none of the lithic artifacts are diagnostic, the simple stamped sherd resembles specimens of the type Deptford Simple Stamped. Based on our collection, 8WS470A appears to be a Deptford site. Cockrell and Morrell (2005) describe the site as a Deptford and Weeden Island site, but it is unclear whether the “Weeden Island Check Stamped” (Wakulla Check Stamped) sherd they described was recovered on 8WS470A or 8WS470B. Our limited investigation of 8WS470 indicates that is quite a bit larger than implied by the previous investigation. Based on our surface collection, it appears that 8WS470A covers an area of at least 100- m diameter and may extend to the west and southwest of the borrow pit and road into an area of planted pines.

125

Figure 63. Photograph of the 8WS470a site area, view to the northwest toward the Deep Edge Pond/Greenhead Branch confluence area.

Each of the artifact scatter areas have been disturbed by road construction and structures that crossed Greenhead Branch as well as borrow pit activity apparently associated with previous road and bridge construction, along with subsequent erosion. However, we concur with the recommendation of Cockrell and Morrell (2005) that 8WS470A and 8WS470B should be the subject of formal Phase I survey as an initial step in their evaluation.

Table 12. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8WS470A. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) General Surface n/a n/a 1 chert core fragment (modified) General Surface n/a n/a 1 2” chert, biface preform fragment General Surface n/a n/a 4 0.50” chert debitage, biface thinning flakes 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake, General Surface n/a n/a 1 thermally altered General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.50” chert chunk or shatter coarse sand-tempered, simple stamped, General Surface n/a n/a 1 body sherd

8WS471

Site Type: standing historic structure Cultural Affiliation: early-twentieth-century American

126 USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Sections 7 and 8 Elevation: 130 ft. amsl Landform: plateau south of Greenhead Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Greenhead Branch /450 m north Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine, partially cleared NRHP Eligibility: potentially eligible

Site 8WS471 is a deteriorated standing structure known locally as the “old Greenhead school.” The structure is a wood frame, double pen cottage, with cypress clapboard siding, a raised pine and cypress floor and frame on cypress pier blocks reinforced with brick and cinder block piers, a central brick fireplace and chimney, a front-oriented gabled roof with sheet metal roofing, double hung, six over six pane windows, and a collapsed metal roofed wrap-around porch (Figures 64 through 66). Interior features include oak bead board walls and ceilings, a double fireplace, and cypress plank flooring. Remnants of a picket fence are located around the structure, as are ornamental plants such as crepe myrtle and azalea.

Figure 64. Photograph of 8WS471; view to the northwest looking at the southeast corner of the structure and small addition or detached kitchen.

127

Figure 65. Photograph of 8WS471; view to the east looking at west side of the structure.

Informants indicate that 8WS471 served as a school around the turn-of-the- century and was in operation until the 1940s. There are two lines of evidence that dispute this claim, however. BLM General Land Office records indicate that on June 30, 1905, Elizabeth Dykes (Patentee) was issued title to 160.7 acres of land (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL3090_.207) that make up the southwest quarter of Section 8 and may include the 8WS471 site area and the 1950 Vernon USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangle places the Greenhead school about 150 m north of 8WS471 (Figure 67). The design of the structure is more in line with a domestic residence rather than a public school, although early twentieth-century two-room schoolhouses are not unheard of. A 1949 aerial photograph also tends to suggest that 8WS471 and another nearby apparent early- twentieth-century domestic structure (8WS1029, razed) recorded approximately 60 m south-southeast during the current survey (see below) are components of the Elizabeth Dykes homestead. Cleared land associated with the Dykes homestead is clearly visible surrounding the site area on the 1949 aerial photograph (Figure 68). A scatter of apparent early-twentieth-century artifacts and architectural materials (8WS473), which was also recorded during the current survey, appears to be the site of the Greenhead School.

128

Figure 66. Photograph of 8WS471; view of the interior of the structure from a window near the southwest corner.

Figure 67. Detail from the 1950 Vernon, FL USGS quadrangle depicting the locations of the Greenhead School and the Dykes homestead to the south.

129

Figure 68. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS471 and 8WS1029 site areas. Note the cleared land surrounding Dykes homestead area and 8WS474. (Courtesy of Northwest Florida Water Management District).

Because the core elements of 8WS471 are structurally sound and primarily intact, the site may be eligible for NRHP nomination. It is recommended that thorough background research, including more extensive informant interviews, be conducted and that the District schedule clean up and remediation of the main structure leading to its short-term preservation. Formal evaluation of the structure’s historic significance is also recommended.

8WS472

Site Type: late-nineteenth-century canal and water-control structures Cultural Affiliation: late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida: T1N, R14W, Section 6 and T1N, R15W, Sections 1 and 12 Elevation: 70 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: low terrace formations between Joiner Lake and Dykes Mill Pond

130 Soil Classification: Foxworth and Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes, Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soils Present Vegetation: hardwood, pine, and cypress NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS472 includes canal and water-control stations apparently constructed in the late nineteenth century, designed to divert the course of Pine Log Creek between Joiner Lake and Dykes Mill Pond, bypassing the Dry Lake and Green Lakes area. The 8WS472 canal complex extends south and west from the west side of Joiner Lake to an unnamed pond and on to north end of Dykes Mill Pond (see Figure 4).

8WS472 is made up of less than a half mile of canal segments and the remains of at least three water-control gates built from cypress timbers and boards. Figure 69 illustrates an example of the remnants of the Dykes Canal water-control devices. Site 8WS472 may be eligible for the NRHP; however, a formal evaluation of the site has not been completed.

Figure 69. Photograph of the Dykes Canal water-control gate on the north end of Dykes Mill Pond. View is to the west-southwest.

8WS473

Site Type: artifact scatter, old Greenhead School Cultural Affiliation: early-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Sections 7 and 8

131 Elevation: 130 ft. amsl Landform: plateau south of Greenhead Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Greenhead Branch /300 m north Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine, partially cleared NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS473 is a very light-density scatter of early-twentieth-century artifacts and deteriorated structural remains such as few cypress boards (n=4), brick fragments (n=3), and pieces of window glass (n=2) that apparently represent the remains of the old Greenhead school. The artifact scatter appears to have been associated with a wood frame structure with cypress siding and windows built on cypress and brick piers, where few domestic materials were used. Aside from the architectural remains described, surface artifacts observed and inventoried on the site include amethyst (n=2) and clear (n=1) bottle glass, undecorated whiteware (n=1), and ferrous metal fragments.

Figure 70. Photograph of the 8WS473 site area, view to the east.

Site 8WS473 is located within the Elizabeth Dykes homestead (1905 patent). Although no information was obtained to indicate that the structure was built by the Dykes family or that they donated the land, both are a possibility. The site is located approximately 150 m north of the Dykes homestead (8WS471) and is depicted on the

132 1950 Vernon, Florida USGS quadrangle (Figure 67), and although the structure is gone, the cleared land where it was located is visible on a 1949 aerial photograph (see Figure 68). Carswell (1991) indicates that the school was opened by 1890 and that in 1911, Nella Melvin was listed on Washington County School Board payroll records as the Greenhead School teacher. Informants indicate that Fitzhugh Carter graduated from the Greenhead school before attending high school and teaching in Vernon.

8WS473 was not shovel tested and was, therefore, not formally evaluated. The site area has been negatively impacted by silviculture and it is likely that the structure was dismantled prior to the planting of pines sometime after the 1949 aerial photograph was taken. It is recommended that thorough background research, including more extensive informant interviews, be conducted as part of a evaluation process, in addition to further archaeological testing.

8WS1006

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified aboriginal, possibly Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 70 ft. amsl Landform: terrace along east side of Black Pond Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Black Pond/40 m west-northwest Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: hardwood hammock with mature and secondary hardwoods NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1006 is apparently a small, light to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a portion of a terrace on the east side of Black Pond (see Figure 4). The site was discovered with the collection of lithic debitage from a cleared and somewhat eroded area associated with small fishing camp structure that appears to date to the 1980s and has been used as recently as three to five years ago (Figure 71). The site covers an estimated area about 30 m in diameter on a gently sloping portion of the terrace situated approximately 40 m east-northeast and 10 ft. above Black Pond. 8WS1006 was not shovel tested.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1006 consist of ½-inch non-cortical chert debitage (n=6), each of which is a biface thinning flake (Table 13). Based on the limited data recorded, 8WS1006 is considered to be the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified aboriginal period, presumably the preceramic Archaic. 8WS1006 was not formally evaluated and the data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1006 should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

133

Figure 71. Photograph of the 8WS1006 site area, view to the west-northwest

Table 13. Artifacts Recovered from Sites 8WS1006 through 8WS1011, by Provenience. Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8WS1006 General Surface n/a n/a 1 thermally altered 8WS1006 General Surface n/a n/a 5 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1007 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered plain, rim sherd 8WS1007 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered cord marked, body sherd 8WS1007 General Surface n/a n/a 2 sand-tempered check stamped, body sherd 8WS1007 General Surface n/a n/a 3 sand-tempered plain, body sherds

8WS1008 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1” chert debitage, tertiary flake 8WS1008 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.5” Tallahatta quartzite debitage, tertiary flake 8WS1008 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1008 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1009 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1009 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1009 General Surface n/a n/a 3 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1010 General Surface n/a n/a 1 Wakulla Check Stamped, folded rim sherd 8WS1010 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered check stamped, body sherd 8WS1010 General Surface n/a n/a 4 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 8WS1010 General Surface n/a n/a 3 sherdlets, sand-tempered plain

8WS1011 General Surface n/a n/a 2 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 0.50” chert debitage, tertiary flake, thermally 8WS1011 General Surface n/a n/a 1 altered 8WS1011 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

134

8WS1007

Site Type: aboriginal ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified Woodland, possibly Deptford or Weeden Island USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 110 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe along west side of Deep Edge Pond Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Deep Edge Pond/70-m east Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: secondary turkey oak, live oak and pine, recently partially clear cut NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1007 is apparently a small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal ceramic scatter on a portion of a ridge toe on the west side of Deep Edge Pond (see Figure 4). The site was discovered with the collection of ceramics from a somewhat eroded dirt road area that extends around the western portion of the pond (Figure 72). The site covers an area about 50 m in diameter on a gently to moderately sloping portion of the ridge toe situated approximately 70 m to the west and 30 ft. above Deep Edge Pond.

8WS1007 was not shovel tested. Surface artifacts recovered from 8WS1007 (see Table 13) consist of sand-tempered plain rim (n=1) and body sherds (n=3) and sand- tempered check-stamped (n=2) and cord-marked (n=1) body sherds. The sherds recovered are suggestive of either a Weeden Island or Deptford occupation. Based on this limited data, 8WS1007 is considered the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified Woodland period, most likely Deptford or Weeden Island. 8WS1007 was not formally evaluated and the data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1007 should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation occur in the site area.

Figure 72. Photograph of the 8WS1007 site area, view to the east.

135 8WS1008

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified aboriginal, possibly Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 100 ft. amsl Landform: ridge crest between Deep Edge Pond and Pine Log Creek basin Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Deep Edge Pond/100 m south Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: secondary turkey oak, live oak and pine, recently partially clear cut NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1008 is apparently a small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter site located on a ridge crest situated north of Deep Edge Pond between the pond and the Pine Log Creek basin (see Figure 4). The site was discovered during pedestrian walkover of the HPA when lithic artifacts were collected from a somewhat eroded dirt road area that extends around the western and northern portions of Deep Edge Pond (Figure 73). The site covers an estimated area of about 50 m in diameter on a gently to moderately sloping portion of the ridge toe situated approximately 100 m to the north and 20 ft. above Deep Edge Pond.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1008 consist of ¼- to1-inch non-cortical chert (n=3) and quartzite (n=1) debitage (see Table 13). Based on the limited data recorded, 8WS1008 is considered the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified aboriginal period, presumably the preceramic Archaic. 8WS1008 was not shovel tested and, therefore was not formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1008 should be evaluated before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 73. Photograph of the 8WS1008 site area, view to the west-southwest.

136 8WS1009

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified aboriginal, possibly Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 12 Elevation: 90 to 110 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe along east side of Boggy Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Boggy Branch/40 m west Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, planted pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1009 is apparently a small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a side slope portion of a ridge toe on the east side of Boggy Branch (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from a cleared and eroded borrow pit area associated with a road and culvert crossing on Boggy Branch (Figure 74). The site covers an area about 40 m in diameter, but may be larger and extend to the north along the ridge toe. 8WS1009 is situated approximately 40 m east and 10 to 20 ft. above Boggy Branch.

8WS1009 was not shovel tested. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1009 consist of ¼-inch (n=3) and 1-inch (n=2) non-cortical chert debitage, each of which is a biface thinning flake (see Table 13). Based on the limited data recorded, 8WS1009 is considered to be the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified aboriginal period, presumably the preceramic Archaic. 8WS1009 was not formally evaluated and the data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1009 should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 74. Photograph of the 8WS1009 site area, view to the east.

137

8WS1010

Site Type: aboriginal ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland, probable Late Weeden Island USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 12 Elevation: 85 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe along west side of Boggy Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Boggy Branch/50 m east Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1010 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal ceramic scatter on a side slope portion of a ridge toe on the west side of Boggy Branch immediately across from 8WS1009 (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when ceramic artifacts were collected from a cleared and eroded area associated with the road that crosses Boggy Branch (Figure 75). The site covers an area about 40 m in diameter, but may be larger and may extend north and south along the ridge toe. 8WS1010 is situated approximately 50 m west and 10 to 15 ft. above Boggy Branch.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1010 consist of sand-tempered plain (n=7) and check-stamped (n=1) vessel body sherds, as well as a Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd (see Table 13). Based on the limited data recorded, particularly the Wakulla Check Stamped sherd, 8WS1010 is considered to be the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to the Late Weeden Island period. With the recovery of only a single diagnostic artifact, the temporal assignment is tenuous, however. 8WS1010 was not shovel tested and the data collected is not sufficient for NRHP evaluation. 8WS1010 should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 75. Photograph of the 8WS1010 site area, view to the west from 8WS1009.

138

8WS1011

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified Woodland USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 90 to 100 ft. amsl Landform: side slope along east side of Pine Log Creek basin Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek/60 m west Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: secondary turkey oak, live oak and pine, clear cut power line right of way NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1011 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter along a side slope on the east side of Pine Log Creek where a power line extends northwestward across Pine Log Creek (see Figure 4). The site was discovered during pedestrian walkover of the HPA when lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from an eroded dirt road and slope area in the right of way (ROW) (Figure 76). The site covers an area about 30 m in diameter on a gently to moderately sloping portion of the side slope approximately 60 m to the east and 20 ft. above Pine Log Creek.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1011 (see Table 13) consist of ¼- and ½-inch non- cortical chert debitage (n=2) and sand-tempered plain ceramic vessel body sherds (n=2). Based on the limited data available, 8WS1011 is considered the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified Woodland period. The 8WS1011 site area was not shovel tested and, therefore was not formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1011 should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 76. Photograph of the 8WS1011 site area, view to the northwest toward Pine Log Creek.

139 8WS1012

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified Woodland USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 80 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: ridge crest (hillock) between Black Pond and two unnamed sinkhole ponds Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: unnamed sinkhole pond/40 m southeast Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: secondary and mature live oak and pine, clear cut power line ROW NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1012 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter on a hillock south of Black Pond where a power line extends northwestward out of the Pine Log Creek basin (see Figure 4). The site was discovered during pedestrian walkover of the HPA when lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from an eroded dirt road and slope area in the ROW (Figure 77). The site covers an area about 50 m in diameter on the gently to moderately sloping eastern portion of the hillock approximately 40 m to the northwest and 20 ft. above an unnamed sink hole pond locally referred to as Powerline Pond. 8WS1012 may extend outside the ROW to the north toward Black Pond and, therefore, may be larger than currently estimated.

Surface artifacts recovered from 8WS1012 consist of ¼-inch (n=2) and ½-inch (n=1) non-cortical chert debitage and sand-tempered plain ceramic vessel body sherds (n=4) (Table 14). Based on the limited data available, 8WS1012 appears to be the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified Woodland period. The 8WS1012 site area was not shovel tested and, as a result, has not been formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1012 should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 77. Photograph of the 8WS1012 site area, view to the southeast.

140

Table 14. Artifacts Recovered from Sites 8WS1012 through 8WS1017, by Provenience. Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 8WS1012 General Surface n/a n/a 4 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 0.50” chert debitage, tertiary flake, thermally 8WS1012 General Surface n/a n/a 1 altered 8WS1012 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1013 General Surface n/a n/a 3 grog-tempered plain, body sherds 8WS1013 General Surface n/a n/a 2 sand-tempered plain, body sherds sand-tempered complicated stamped, body 8WS1013 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sherd

sand-tempered linear check stamped, body 8WS1014 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sherd, Deptford Linear Check Stamped (?) point fragment, chert, corner-notched base, 8WS1014 General Surface n/a n/a 1 Wade-like 8WS1014 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.50” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1014 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25” chert debitage, tertiary flake

8WS1015 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1” chert secondary decortication flake 8WS1015 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.50” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1015 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.50” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1015 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1016 General Surface n/a n/a 3 sand-tempered plain, body sherds

terra-cotta Herty Cup fragments, rectangular 8WS1017 General Surface n/a n/a 9 vessel 8WS1017 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.50” chert secondary decortication flake 8WS1017 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.25” chert debitage, tertiary flakes

8WS1013

Site Type: aboriginal ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland, probable Deptford or Santa Rosa/Swift Creek USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 12 Elevation: 70 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe south of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek swamp/50 m north Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1013 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal ceramic scatter on a lower ridge toe segment south of Pine Log Creek (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when ceramic artifacts were collected from a cleared and eroded area

141 associated with an abandoned logging road that extends into the Pine Log Creek floodplain (Figure 78). The site covers an area about 30 m in diameter, but may be larger. 8WS1013 is situated approximately 50 m north of and 10 to 15 ft. above the Pine Log Creek floodplain swamp.

Figure 78. Photograph of the 8WS1013 site area, view to the north toward Pine Log Creek.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1013 (see Table 14) consist of sand-tempered plain (n=2) and complicated-stamped (n=1) vessel body sherds, and grog-tempered plain body sherd (n=3). Based on the limited data available, site 8WS1013 is considered to be the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to the Woodland, probably either the Deptford or Santa Rosa/Swift Creek period. 8WS1013 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation, and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

8WS1014

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland, probable Deptford and/or Late Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 11 Elevation: 95 to100 ft. amsl Landform: side slope on small spring run south of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: unnamed spring run/30 m northwest Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, partially cleared NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

142 Site 8WS1014 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter on a small seep spring run on a side slope south of Pine Log Creek (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from a cleared and eroded area associated with Chain Lakes Road and the District’s southwestern Carter Tract boundary fence (Figure 79). 8WS1014 is situated approximately 30 m east-southeast of and 10 ft. above the unnamed seep spring and run that flow north into the Pine Log Creek floodplain swamp. The site appears to cover an area about 50 m in diameter, but may be larger.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1014 (see Table 14) consist of a sand-tempered linear check stamped body sherd (possibly Deptford Linear Check Stamped), a base (proximal fragment) of a corner notched chert Wade point, and chert tertiary debitage (n=3). Based on the limited data collected, site 8WS1014 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to the Late Archaic and/or Early Woodland, Deptford periods. Wade Cluster points date to the Late Archaic period (Justice 1987), but may be found on Early Woodland sites. Deptford Linear Check Stamped, as the name implies, is a Deptford diagnostic ceramic type found throughout the Southeast (Willey 1941).

8WS1014 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The site may be remains of multicomponent Late Archaic and Early Woodland occupations or a single Deptford occupation. The data collected are not sufficient to determine the temporal nature of the component(s) or to determine NRHP status. As a result, the site should be evaluated for NRHP status prior to additional impacts to the site area.

Figure 79. Photograph of the 8WS1014 site area, view to the northwest.

143 8WS1015

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified aboriginal, possibly Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 12 Elevation: 90 to 110 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe along east side of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek/70 m west Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, planted pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1015 is apparently a small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a side slope portion of a broad ridge on the east side of Pine Log Creek near a sinkhole (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from a cleared eroded area associated with the District’s boundary fence and firebreak (Figure 80). The site covers an area about 40 m in diameter, but may be larger and may extend to the north along the side slope toward a ridge toe on private property. 8WS1015 is situated approximately 70 m east of and 30 to 40 ft. above Pine Log Creek.

8WS1015 was not shovel tested. Artifacts recovered from 8WS1015 consist of ¼-inch (n=2) and ½-inch (n=2) non-cortical chert debitage, each of which is a biface thinning flake, as well as a 1-inch (n=1) secondary decortication flake (see Table 14). Based on the limited data available, 8WS1015 is considered the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified aboriginal period, presumably the preceramic Archaic. 8WS1015 was not formally evaluated and the data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1015 should be evaluated before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 80. Photograph of the 8WS1015 site area, view to the west toward Pine Log Creek.

144 8WS1016

Site Type: aboriginal ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified Woodland USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 60 to70 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe on north side of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek/50 m south Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1016 is an apparently small, light to moderate density aboriginal ceramic scatter on a lower ridge toe segment that extends from the north side of Pine Log Creek into the Pine Log Creek basin (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when ceramic artifacts were collected from an eroded area associated with a dirt access road that crosses the Pine Log Creek floodplain (Figure 81). The site covers an estimated area about 30 m in diameter, but may be larger. 8WS1016 is situated approximately 50 m north of and 10 to 15 ft. above the Pine Log Creek floodplain swamp.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1016 (see Table 14) consist of sand-tempered plain vessel body sherds (n=3). Based on this limited data, site 8WS1016 is considered to be the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to the Woodland, but the period cannot be identified due to a lack of diagnostic artifacts. 8WS1016 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 81. Photograph of the 8WS1016 site area, view to the south.

145 8WS1017

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 80 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe on north side of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek/70 m south Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1017 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on an upper ridge toe segment on the north side of Pine Log Creek (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded area associated with a dirt access road that extends along the north side of Pine Log Creek in the site area (Figure 82). The site covers an area about 30 m in diameter, but may be larger. 8WS1017 is situated approximately 50 m north of and 10 to 15 ft. above the Pine Log Creek floodplain swamp.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1017 (see Table 14) consist of ¼-inch tertiary chert debitage (n=2), a ½-inch chert secondary decortication flake, and several large terra-cotta turpentine cup fragments. Fragments of various turpentine collection cup types were often observed and not recorded during the survey because they are ubiquitous occurrences in this area. No other historic artifacts were recovered.

Based on the limited data available, site 8WS1017 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to an Archaic period. 8WS1017 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation, but the site should be evaluated before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 82. Photograph of the 8WS1017 site area, view to the west.

146

8WS1018

Site Type: late-nineteenth- to mid-twentieth-century house/homestead site Cultural Affiliation: late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 12 Elevation: 80 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe on south side of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Boggy Branch/130 to 150 m east Soil Classification: Centenary sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, planted cedar NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1018 is the razed remains of a late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century homestead. The site is situated on a level to gently sloping portion of a broad ridge toe and side slope located west of Boggy Branch on the south side of Pine Log Creek (Figure 4). The house site is depicted on the 1950 USGS Vernon, Florida quadrangle and the homestead area is clearly visible on a 1949 aerial photograph, but no standing structure is visible (Figures 83 and 84). The site was discovered during pedestrian survey when numerous historic artifacts, brick, an apparent raze pile, and planted cedars were documented. 8WS1018 is located within a 161-acre tract transferred to Benjamin F. Carter (Patentee) on November 8, 1905, as a homestead patent (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL1090_.381). Site 8WS1018 may be the Benjamin Carter homestead. Local informants, including the wife of Benjamin Carter’s grandson, indicate that the homestead was sold to Fred Fackler in the late 1920s.

Figure 83. Detail from the 1950 USGS Vernon, FL quadrangle depicting the location of site 8WS1018 and cleared areas around the homestead site.

147

Figure 84. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS1018 site area. Note the cleared land surrounding homestead area. (Courtesy of Northwest Florida Water Management District).

Historic artifacts recovered and observed on the site include a variety of glass container and bottle types, molded porcelain, undecorated and hand-painted whiteware, and black-glazed stoneware ceramics, architectural remains such as window glass, bricks and brick and mortar fragments, nails, and terra-cotta Herty cup fragments (Table 15). Temporally sensitive historic artifacts collected include ceramics consisting exclusively of porcelain (n=1), whiteware (n=13) and black-glazed stoneware (n=1), amethyst glass (n=6), and Herty cup fragments (n=1). This array of artifacts clearly indicates that this homestead was established and occupied well into the first half of the twentieth century. The architectural remains present at 8WS1018 indicate that the structure was likely a wood frame house built on brick pier foundations with at least one brick chimney. The presence of window glass indicates that the structure had windows. No evidence of intact structural features associated with the site was observed, but the site was not shovel tested. A cleared area that appears to be an old field may be where the structure stood before it was razed (Figure 85).

Based on this limited data, site 8WS1018 is considered the remnants of the Benjamin Carter and Fred Fackler homestead. The presence of turpentine cup fragments may indicate that either the Carter family was involved in the turpentine business or that the structure served as a side camp after the family’s departure. 8WS1018 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

148

Table 15. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8WS1018. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) General Surface n/a n/a 1 terra-cotta Herty Cup base fragment undecorated whiteware, plate/bowl rim General Surface n/a n/a 3 fragments undecorated whiteware, plate/bowl base General Surface n/a n/a 3 fragments undecorated whiteware, plate/bowl body General Surface n/a n/a 5 fragments hand-painted and edge-molded whiteware, General Surface n/a n/a 2 plate/bowl rim fragments edge-molded porcelain, plate/bowl body General Surface n/a n/a 1 fragment stoneware, black glazed exterior and General Surface n/a n/a 1 unglazed interior, body fragment General Surface n/a n/a 6 amethyst glass, bottle body fragments General Surface n/a n/a 1 milk glass, vase body fragment General Surface n/a n/a 1 aquamarine glass, bottle neck fragment

Figure 85. Photograph of the 8WS1018 site area, view to the south-southeast toward the former homestead location.

8WS1019

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified Woodland USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6

149 Elevation: 100 to 120 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe and side slope south-southwest of Joiner Lake Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Joiner Lake/60 m northeast Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: secondary turkey oak, live oak and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1019 is an apparently small, light to moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter along a ridge toe side slope to the southwest of Joiner Lake (see Figure 4). The site was discovered during pedestrian walkover of the HPA when lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from an eroded dirt road and slope area approximately 80 m to the east and 20 to 30 ft. above Joiner Lake (Figure 86). The site covers an area about 30 m in diameter, although it may be larger and may extend upslope and down slope of the road.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1019 (Table 16) consist of ½-inch non-cortical chert debitage (n=5) and a sand-tempered plain ceramic vessel body sherd (n=1). Based on this limited data, 8WS1019 is considered the remnants of a camp dating to an unspecified Woodland period. The 8WS1019 site area was not shovel tested and, therefore was not formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation. 8WS1019 should be evaluated before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 86. Photograph of the 8WS1019 site area, view to the northwest.

150 Table 16. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8WS1019 through 8WS1023. Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 8WS1019 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd 8WS1019 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.50" chert debitage chunk or shatter 8WS1019 General Surface n/a n/a 3 0.50" chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1020 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1" chert debitage, biface blade fragment 8WS1020 General Surface n/a n/a 2 1" chert debitage, biface thinning flake

0.25" chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8WS1021 General Surface n/a n/a 1 thermally altered 8WS1021 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.50" chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1022 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.50" chert debitage, tertiary flake 8WS1022 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1" chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8WS1022 General Surface n/a n/a 2 1" chert debitage, tertiary flakes

8WS1023 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25" quartzite debitage, tertiary flake 8WS1023 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.50" quartzite debitage, tertiary flake 8WS1023 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.50" chert debitage, tertiary flakes 8WS1023 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1" chert debitage, tertiary flake

8WS1020

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 70 ft. amsl Landform: terrace on south side of the Dry Lake wetland Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Joiner Lake Canal/30 m south Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1020 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a terrace segment on the north side of the former channel of Pine Log Creek on the edge of the extensive wetlands associated with Dry Lake (see Figure 4). The old Pine Log Creek channel has been converted into the Joiner Lake Canal in the vicinity of site 8WS1020. The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded portion of a dirt access road that extends north across the channel and around the eastern edge of the Dry Lake wetland (Figure 87). The site covers an estimated area of 30 m in diameter, but may be larger.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1020 (see Table 16) consist of 1-inch tertiary chert debitage (n=2) and a medial chert bifacial blade fragment. Based on this limited data,

151 site 8WS1020 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to the Archaic. 8WS1020 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 87. Photograph of the 8WS1020 site area, view to the south across site toward Dykes Canal and 8WS1021.

8WS1021

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 70 ft. amsl Landform: terrace on south side of the Dry Lake wetland Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Joiner Lake Canal/30 m north Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1021 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a terrace segment directly south of 8WS1020 and the Joiner Lake Canal (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded portion of a dirt access road that extends east to west between the canal and an unnamed

152 pond (Figure 88). The site covers an estimated area of 30 m in diameter, but may be larger.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1021 (see Table 16) consist of ¼-inch (n=1) and ½- inch (n=2) tertiary chert debitage. Each debitage specimen is a biface-thinning flake. Based on the limited data recorded, site 8WS1021 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to the Archaic. 8WS1021 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 88. Photograph of the 8WS1021 site area, view to the north.

8WS1022

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 80 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: lower ridge toe east of unnamed pond Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: unnamed pond/70 m west Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

153

Site 8WS1022 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a lower ridge toe slope east of an unnamed pond. 8WS1022 is on the same ridge toe formation as site 8WS1019, but is situated well west of that site and Joiner Lake (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded portion of a dirt access road and firebreak along the District’s boundary fence (Figure 89). The site covers an estimated area of 30 m in diameter, but may be larger.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1022 (see Table 16) consist of ½-inch (n=1) and 1- inch (n=3) tertiary chert debitage. Based on this limited data, site 8WS1022 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to the Archaic. 8WS1022 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 89. Photograph of the 8WS1022 site area, view to the east and upslope.

8WS1023

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 85 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe south of Dykes Mill Pond on east side of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Dykes Mill Pond/50 m north Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes

154 Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, largely cleared NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1023 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a ridge toe slope south of Dykes Mill Pond and east of Pine Log Creek. 8WS1023 is located less than 50 m to the east of the Dykes Mill dam (8WS469) on Pine Log Creek and across the creek from prehistoric site 8WS468 (see Figure 4). The site was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded portion of a dirt access road and borrow pit situated east of the mill dam/bridge (Figure 90). The site covers an estimated area of 40 m in diameter, but may be larger.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1023 (see Table 16) consist of ¼-inch (n=1), ½- inch (n=2) and 1-inch (n=1) tertiary chert debitage and a ½-inch quartzite debitage specimen. Based on the limited data recorded, site 8WS1023 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to the Archaic. 8WS1023 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 90. Photograph of the 8WS1023 site area, view to the east-northeast.

155 8WS1024

Site Type: homestead site Cultural Affiliation: Late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 80 ft. amsl Landform: minor ridge crest along Pine Log Creek at Dykes Mill Pond Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek /<50 m southeast Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine, planted cedar NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1024 is the remnants of a homestead near the Dykes Mill site (8WS469). The homestead appears to primarily date to the early to mid-twentieth-century. BLM General Land Office records indicate that on June 30, 1905 James G. Dykes (Patentee) was issued title to 159.7 acres of land (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL1090_.178) that encompasses Dykes Mill Pond and site 8WS1024. The patent records certainly suggest that 8WS1024 is the James G. Dykes homestead.

The site is located on a minor ridge crest situated between Dykes Mill Pond and Black Pond (see Figure 4), approximately 140 m northwest of the Dykes Mill site (8WS469) recorded by Cockrell and Morrell (2005). The site is depicted on U.S.G.S. Vernon, Florida quadrangle maps that predate 1982 and the homestead is clearly visible on a 1949 aerial photograph of the area (Figures 91 and 92). 8WS1024 consists of a scatter of artifacts and brick, a few planted cedar trees, and an intact brick structure that appears to be either a fireplace and chimney base or a foundation pier. Artifacts observed include amethyst, clear, aquamarine, and clear bottle and container glass, whiteware ceramics, ferrous metal objects, and fence posts and wire fencing. Additional artifacts was recovered from surface contexts, including a complete cobalt blue “Vicks” bottle (Table 17). The site appears to cover an area between 50 and 100 m in diameter, but remains of fence lines and pens cover an area of approximately 5 acres around the apparent location of the house site. A large cedar tree also marks the location of the house site and several cedars line apparent and/or dilapidated fence rows.

Based on the data recorded, site 8WS1024 is considered to be the remnants of the James Dykes homestead. 8WS1024 was not shovel tested. The data available at this time is not sufficient to evaluation the NRHP status of the site. Because the site has not been formally evaluated, evaluation should be completed before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

156 Table 17. Artifacts Recovered from Sites 8WS1024 through 8WS1029. Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) cobalt blue, embossed medicine bottle, 8WS1024 General Surface n/a n/a 1 "VICKS VA-TRO NOL", screw top finish terra cotta Herty turpentine cup body 8WS1024 General Surface n/a n/a 3 fragments undecorated whiteware, plate/bowl base 8WS1024 General Surface n/a n/a 2 fragments 8WS1024 General Surface n/a n/a 3 milk glass, bottle base fragments amber glass, embossed bottle base 8WS1024 General Surface n/a n/a 1 fragment, “ 8 2426, D-9 47, M251 8WS1024 General Surface n/a n/a 1 annular whiteware, plate/bowl body fragment

8WS1025 General Surface n/a n/a 1 point/biface fragment, chert, stem only 0.25" chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8WS1025 General Surface n/a n/a 1 thermally altered 8WS1025 General Surface n/a n/a 1 1" chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1026 General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd 8WS1026 General Surface n/a n/a 2 sand-tempered check stamped, body sherds 8WS1026 General Surface n/a n/a 1 Carrabelle Punctated, rim sherd 8WS1026 General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25" quartzite debitage, tertiary flake

0.25" chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8WS1027 General Surface n/a n/a 2 thermally altered 0.50" chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8WS1027 General Surface n/a n/a 1 thermally altered 8WS1027 General Surface n/a n/a 3 0.25" chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8WS1028 General Surface n/a n/a 3 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 8WS1028 ST 1 II 40-50 1 0.50" chert debitage, biface thinning flake

edge-molded whiteware, tea cup rim 8WS1029 General Surface n/a n/a 1 fragment 8WS1029 General Surface n/a n/a 1 green-glazed whiteware, body fragment 8WS1029 General Surface n/a n/a 1 yellow-glazed stoneware, rim fragment clear, medicine bottle, machine made, 8WS1029 General Surface n/a n/a 1 graduated for measurements, screw top finish clear, machine made, olive oil bottle, 8WS1029 General Surface n/a n/a 1 decorative, screw top finish clear, machine made, medicine bottle, 8WS1029 General Surface n/a n/a 1 embossed "Rawleighs", screw top finish

157

Figure 91. Detail from the 1950 USGS Vernon, Florida quadrangle showing the location of site 8WS1024.

Figure 92. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS1024 site area. Note the cleared land surrounding homestead area. (Courtesy of Northwest Florida Water Management District).

158 8WS1025

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 6 Elevation: 80 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe between Dykes Mill Pond and Black Pond Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Dykes Mill Pond/40 m east Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1025 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a ridge toe slope west of Dykes Mill Pond and east of Black Pond. 8WS1025 is located approximately 150 m to the south-southeast of site 8WS1006 (see Figure 4). The site (Figure 93) was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded portion of the ridge toe that was impacted by the excavation of Fitzhugh Carter’s canal on Dykes Mill Pond (8WS1030, see below). The site covers an area about 30 m in diameter, but may be larger.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1025 (see Table 17) consist of ¼-inch (n=1), and 1- inch (n=1) tertiary chert debitage and a chert proximal biface fragment (stem). Based on this limited data, site 8WS1025 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to the Archaic. The stemmed biface fragment also implies a Middle or Late Archaic component. 8WS1025 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 93. Photograph of the 8WS1025 site area; view to the northeast.

159 8WS1026

Site Type: aboriginal ceramic and lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland, probably Late Weeden Island USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 90 to 100 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe and side slope on west side of Greenhead Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Greenhead Branch/50 m southeast Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, partially cleared NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1026 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal ceramic and lithic scatter on a lower ridge toe segment between the Pine Log Creek basin, Greenhead Branch, and Deep Edge Pond (see Figure 4). The site is on the eastern portion of the landform near the confluence of the Deep Edge Pond outflow and Greenhead Branch. Ceramic and lithic artifacts were collected from an eroded area associated with a dirt access road that crosses the Deep Edge Pond outflow floodplain (Figure 94). The site covers an area about 50 m in diameter, but may be larger. 8WS1026 is situated approximately 50 m northwest of and 15 to 20 ft. above Greenhead Branch.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1026 (see Table 17) consist of sand-tempered plain (n=1) and check-stamped (n=2) vessel body sherds, a Carrabelle Punctated vessel rim sherd, and ¼ inch quartzite debitage (n=1). Based on this limited data, site 8WS1026 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to the Late Weeden Island period. 8WS1026 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated before additional impacts occur.

Figure 94. Photograph of the 8WS1026 site area, view to the north.

160 8WS1027

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unspecified prehistoric, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Section 7 Elevation: 80 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: slope and terrace-like areas around Double Sink Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Double Sink Pond/10 to 20 m Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed hardwoods and pine, primarily live oak NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1027 is a light to moderate density aboriginal lithic scatter around the edges of Double Sink, a twin sinkhole formation with wet season ponds. The primary location of the scatter is a toe slope dividing the . Double Sink and site 8WS1027 are located approximately 500 m to the north of Greenhead Branch (see Figure 4). The site (Figure 95) was recorded when lithic artifacts were collected from slightly eroded areas around the sinkholes, particularly the toe slope dividing the formation.

Artifacts recovered from 8WS1027 (see Table 17) consist of ¼-inch (n=5) and ½- inch (n=1) tertiary chert debitage, each of which is a biface-thinning flake. Based on the limited data recorded, site 8WS1027 is considered the remnants of a camp or other limited occupation dating to an unspecified prehistoric period. The absence of ceramics suggests that the site may date to the Archaic. 8WS1027 was not shovel tested or formally evaluated. The data collected is not sufficient for NRHP status evaluation and the site should be evaluated for NRHP status before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 95. Photograph of the 8WS1027 site area, view to the southwest toward the southern sinkhole from the main site area.

161 8WS1028

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter, twentieth-century portable sawmill Cultural Affiliation: unidentified Woodland, possible Archaic, twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R15W, Section 12 Elevation: 70 to 80 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe on north side of Pine Log Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Pine Log Creek/30 m south Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: secondary and mature live oak and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1028 is an apparently small, light- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter and twentieth-century portable sawmill site on a hillock at the terminus of a ridge toe extending southward into the Pine Log Creek basin (Figures 4 and 96). The site was discovered during pedestrian walkover of the HPA when ceramic artifacts were collected from an eroded dirt road and the remnants of the sawmill were identified (Figure 97). The site covers an area of about 90-x-120 m on a low rise on the southern end of the ridge toe and the gently sloping area to the northeast. The majority of the site area is scattered remains associated with the sawmill.

Figure 96. 8WS1028 site map.

162 Three sand-tempered plain ceramic vessel body sherds were collected from the surface at 8WS1028. Scattered cypress board and tailing scraps, cut cypress stumps and trunk segments, undecorated whiteware (n=1) and clear (n=2) and aquamarine (n=2) bottle glass associated with the sawmill were noted on the surface, but not collected (see Table 17). Three shovel tests were excavated across the site at 20- to 30-m intervals, but only one (ST 1) resulted in the recovery of artifacts, a single piece of chert tertiary debitage (see Table 17). Based on the data recorded, 8WS1028 appears to be the remnants of a prehistoric camp dating to an unspecified Woodland period, but may represent separate Woodland and preceramic Archaic occupations. The sawmill at 8WS1028 appears to date to the early to mid-1900s and a local informant indicated that it was operated by Fitzhugh Carter to cut cypress in the 1940 and 1950s. Tennis (1960) indicates that Carter owned a sawmill. Although some shovel tests were excavated at the site, 8WS1028 has not been formally evaluated and the data collected is not sufficient to make a recommendation of NRHP status. 8WS1028 should be evaluated before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

Figure 97. Photograph of the portable sawmill platform at 8WS1028 and the general site area, view to the northwest.

8WS1029

Site Type: historic structure raze pile Cultural Affiliation: Late-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Sections 7 and 8 Elevation: 130 ft. amsl

163 Landform: plateau south of Greenhead Branch Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Greenhead Branch /470 m north Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed mature and secondary hardwoods and pine, planted cedar NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8WS1029 is a razed structure pile from an early-twentieth-century homestead or barn associated with site 8WS471, the Elizabeth Dykes homestead. BLM General Land Office records indicate that on June 30, 1905, Elizabeth Dykes (Patentee) was issued title to 160.7 acres of land in the southwest quarter of Section 8 (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL1090_.207) that may have included 8WS1029 and the Old Greenhead School. Cleared land associated with the Dykes homestead is visible surrounding the site area on a 1949 aerial photograph (Figure 98).

Figure 98. 1949 aerial photograph of the 8WS471 and 8WS1029 site areas. Note the cleared land surrounding the Dykes homestead area. (Courtesy of Northwest Florida Water Management District).

8WS1029 is located approximately 40 m south of the Old Greenhead School. 8WS1029 consists of a piled scatter of artifacts and brick, and a few planted cedar trees. Artifacts observed include amethyst, clear, aquamarine, and clear bottle and container glass, whiteware and stoneware ceramics, ferrous metal objects, and fence posts and wire fencing. Artifacts collected include clear, machine-made bottles, whiteware, and stoneware (see Table 17). One bottle is a clear, machine-made bottle with a continuous

164 thread finish that is embossed with the “Rawleigh’s Bottle Made In USA” trademark. This bottle is dated to between the 1930s and 1940s (Fike 1987). The site appears to cover an area about 30 m in diameter.

8WS1029 was not formally evaluated. The data available at this time is not sufficient to determine the site’s NRHP eligibility. A formal evaluation of 8WS1029 should be completed before additional impacts, such as development or reforestation, occur in the site area.

8WS1030

Site Type: mid-twentieth-century canal and water-control structures Cultural Affiliation: mid-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida; T1N, R14W, Sections 6 and 7 Elevation: 60 to 70 ft. amsl Landform: wetland edges of the Dry Lake basin and Dykes Mill Pond Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes, Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soils Present Vegetation: hardwood, pine, and cypress NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

The water-control canals and control stations constructed by Fitzhugh Carter in the 1950s and 1960s to control the flow of Pine Log Creek through Dykes Mill Pond have been recorded as site 8WS1030. Tennis (1960) states that the course of Pine Log Creek was diverted from the Dry Lake, Green Lakes, and Black Pond complex (Dry Lake Basin) to supply Dykes Mill Pond as early as 1873. In an effort to resupply the Dry Lake Basin (see Figure 4) and maintain natural lake levels during drought conditions, Carter built several canals, dikes, and water control gates to return the flow of Pine Log Creek to the Dry Lake Basin and control the level of Dykes Mill Pond (Tennis 1960). 8WS1030 is Carter’s canal complex, which extends southeast along the east side of the Dry Lake Basin and the western edge of Dykes Mill Pond.

8WS1030 consists of approximately 1.6 miles of canals (Figure 99) and the remains of at least five water-control gates that Carter built from cypress timbers and boards, cinder blocks, and poured concrete. Figures 100 and 101 illustrate examples of the remnants of Carter’s water-control devices, one of which appears to be site 8WS469 described previously. While it appears unlikely that 8WS1030 is eligible for NRHP nomination the site was not formally evaluated..

165

Figure 99. Photograph of the 8WS1030 canal on the west side of Dykes Mill Pond (from Tennis 1960:24).

Figure 100. Example of water-control device remnants along Carter’s canal along the west side of Dykes Mill Pond.

166

Figure 101. Example of water-control device remnants along Carter’s canal along the west side of Dykes Mill Pond.

8WS1031

Site Type: mid-twentieth-century canal and water-control structures Cultural Affiliation: mid-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Vernon, Florida: T1N, R14W, Section 6 and T1N, R15W, Sections 1 and 12 Elevation: 70 to 90 ft. amsl Landform: low terrace and ridge toe formations between Black Pond and Pine Log Creek Soil Classification: Foxworth and Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes, Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soils Present Vegetation: hardwood, pine, and cypress NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Like 8WS1030, site 8WS1031 is one of the canals and water-control systems constructed by Fitzhugh Carter in the 1950s and 1960s to control the course of Pine Log Creek as it relates to the Dry Lake Basin. The 8WS1031 canal complex extends south and west from the southern end of Black Pond to “Powerline Pond” to an unnamed pond and on to Pine Log Creek (see Figure 4). 8WS1030 and 8WS1031 in combination, complete the routing of water from Joiner Lake, which is part of Pine Log Creek, into and

167 through the Dry Lake Basin and back into Pine Log Creek, effectively bypassing Dykes Mill Pond.

8WS1031 is made up of less than a half mile of canal segments and the remains of at least four water-control gates built from cypress timbers and boards, cinder blocks, and poured concrete. Figure 101 illustrates an example of the remnants of Carter’s water control device at the south end of Black Pond where site 8WS1031 begins. While it appears unlikely that 8WS1031 is eligible for NRHP nomination the site was not formally evaluated.

Figure 102. Photograph of the 8WS1031 water-control gate remnants at Black Pond.

HOBB’S PASTURE ADDITION TRACT SURVEY

Introduction

The Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract consists of 1,034 acres of generally level, low- lying terrace land forming a broad point between Econfina Creek and Cedar Creek (Figure 103). Due to the generally level topography of the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract, little suitable ground exposure was encountered for the recording of archaeological sites. Therefore, the majority of the reconnaissance survey involved shovel testing HPAs along Econfina Creek and Cedar Creek and unnamed tributaries of each. Much of the interior portion of the tract is periodically wet pine flatwood low probability areas where archaeological sites rarely occur. The low probability area flatwoods were not surveyed. Nine archaeological sites, 8BY1308 through 8BY1316, were recorded in the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract during this project.

168

Figure 103. Photograph of typical vegetation within the Hobb's Pasture Addition Tract, view to the south-southwest at site 8BY1315.

Historic background documents for the lower Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract reflect the low economic utility of land. Only a single pertinent document pre-dating the 1940s was located. In April 1837, William M. Loftin (Patentee) of St. Andrews, Florida, purchased 40 acres in the northeast quarter of Section 8 (BLM GLO Records serial No. FL0120_144). The majority of this land is low-lying pine woods and includes now- flooded Econfina Creek floodplain land. It appears likely that Loftin purchased the land for its timber rather than for the establishment of a homestead.

Site Descriptions

8BY1308

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter, historic artifact scatter, wharf, and well Cultural Affiliation: unidentified Woodland and possible Archaic, twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 7 Elevation: 10-15 ft. amsl Landform: terrace point between Econfina Creek and Cedar Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Cedar Creek/100 m southwest Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: partially cleared hardwood hammock, live oak/water oak dominate

169 NRHP Eligibility: potentially eligible

Site 8BY1308 is a partially disturbed, moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter and twentieth-century site located on a terrace segment above the now- flooded floodplain at the confluence of Econfina and Cedar creeks, which now form the upper portion of Deer Point Lake (see Figure 5; Figures 104 and 105). The site was discovered while surveying the high probability landform when aboriginal lithic and ceramic artifacts were recovered from the surface and five shovel tests. A general soil profile for the site consists of 12-20 cm of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) to gray (10YR 6/1) sand (Stratum I), 60 to 65 cm of brown (10YR 5/3) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sand (Stratum II), and a layer of light brownish yellow (10YR 6/4) sand (Stratum III) that extended to below 100 cm in depth. 8BY1308 appears to cover an area approximately 80-x-85 m, with prehistoric artifact density highest in the eastern portion of the site. A set of rough-hewn wharf or dock pilings are also present on the shoreline at the south end of the site and a well is located approximately 50 m north of the pilings.

Figure 104. Photograph of the southern tip of site 8BY1308; view to the southeast.

170

Figure 105. 8BY1308 site map.

Shovel testing was conducted at 40-m intervals with judgmental shovel tests to estimate site boundaries. Prehistoric cultural materials recovered from 8BY1308 (Table 18) include a chert biface lateral edge fragment, ¼ to 1½ -inch chert (n=27) and quartzite (n=3) non-cortical debitage, sand-tempered complicated-stamped (n=2), check-stamped (n=3), incised (n=1), and plain (n=3) ceramic vessel fragments, and fired clay object fragments from ST 4. Historic artifacts recovered consist of scattered glass, whiteware, and metal artifacts primarily from surface contexts (Table 18). In ST 4, the check- stamped sherds, which resemble Deptford Bold Check Stamped, were recovered between 10 to 20 cmbs while lithic debitage and fired clay object fragments were recovered between 50 and 70 cmbs from a potential feature. The pattern of recovery in ST 4 suggests that the site may contain stratified Woodland and Archaic components.

Table 18. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8BY1308. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) undecorated whiteware, plate/bowl base General Surface n/a n/a 2 fragments General Surface n/a n/a 1 ridged whiteware, bowl/cup fragment General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered plain, large rim sherd General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd

171 Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) sand-tempered complicated stamped, General Surface n/a n/a 1 concentric circles design, body sherd sand-tempered complicated stamped, General Surface n/a n/a 1 triangular design, body sherd General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered incised, body sherd General Surface n/a n/a 1 1.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake General Surface n/a n/a 1 1.5” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake General Surface n/a n/a 5 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.5” chert debitage, (1) biface thinning flake Shovel Test 1 I-II 10-40 7 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragments Shovel Test 1 I-II 10-40 2 3” iron wire nails Shovel Test 1 I-II 10-40 1 0.5” chert debitage, tertiary flake Shovel Test 2 II 15-50 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 2 II 15-50 1 0.5” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 3 II 40-65 2 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 3 II 40-65 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 3 II 40-65 2 0.5” chert debitage, thermally altered Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 1.5” iron wire fence staple light green bottle glass, vessel body Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 fragment Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 .22 caliber bullet Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 3 sand-tempered check stamped, body sherds Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 3 sherdlets, sand-tempered plain Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 2 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 1” chert debitage, tertiary flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 1” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 0.5” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 2 0.25” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 1 chert biface fragment, lateral edge Shovel Test 4 II 10-65 50 +/- fired clay ball fragments Shovel Test 5 II 20-60 1 1” chert debitage, tertiary flake Shovel Test 5 II 20-60 1 1” chert debitage, tertiary flake

The prehistoric component is considered remnants of occupations dating to the Early (Deptford) to Middle (Santa Rosa/Swift Creek) Woodland and, possibly, the Late Archaic. The historic component appears to date to the early to middle twentieth century, but who built the wharf or dock and why are unknown. As reflected by the paucity of architectural materials recovered, there is little evidence that a structure of structures stood on the site and there is no evidence, including BLM GLO patent records, to indicate a homestead was present. 8BY1308 may be eligible for NRHP nomination based on the potential presence of stratified components and archaeological features.

172 8BY1309

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified, probable Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 6 Elevation: 10-15 ft. amsl Landform: terrace along low order stream on north side of Cedar Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Cedar Creek/80 m northwest Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 percent slopes and Pottsburg sand Present Vegetation: mixed secondary and mature hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1309 is a somewhat disturbed, light-density aboriginal lithic scatter on a point-like terrace segment that slopes to the north and west toward a low order stream and the Cedar Creek floodplain (Figures 5 and 106). The site was discovered during pedestrian survey when aboriginal lithics were recovered from a logging road that cuts through the apparent southeast end of the site area. Shovel tests were excavated at 40-m intervals across the landform holding the site, where STs 1, 2, and 4 resulted in the recovery of debitage. Based on the distribution of surface lithic artifacts, 8BY1309 appears to cover an area 80 m in diameter.

A general soil profile for the site consists of 12-20 cm of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) to gray (10YR 6/1) sand (Stratum I), 60 to 65 cm of brown (10YR 5/3) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sand (Stratum II), and a layer of light brownish yellow (10YR 6/4) sand (Stratum III) that extends to below 100 cm in depth. Cultural materials recovered from 8BY1309 (Table 19) include only ¼ and ½-inch chert (n=4) non-cortical debitage. Two of the chert specimens are heavily patinated. The site is the remnants of an aboriginal campsite dating to an unspecified period of prehistory. Disturbance to the site area, resulting from previous logging and pine planting appears to have disturbed this light-density scatter and the absence of diagnostic artifacts indicate that the research potential of this site is minimal. 8BY1309 does not appear to meet the minimum criteria for NRHP nomination under Criterion D, but the site was not formally evaluated during the current investigations..

Table 19. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8BY1309. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) General Surface n/a n/a 1 0.25” chert debitage, tertiary flake Shovel Test 1 II 10-20 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 2 II 40-50 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 3 II 30-40 1 0.5” chert debitage, tertiary flake

173

Figure 106. 8BY1309 site map.

8BY1310

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland (probably Deptford or Weeden Island) USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 7 Elevation: 10-15 ft. amsl Landform: terrace point between Econfina Creek and unnamed seep spring Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Cedar Creek/<100 m south and east Soil Classification: Foxworth and Centenary sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: hardwood hammock, live oak and water oak dominate NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1310 is a partially disturbed, moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter located on a narrow point-like terrace segment above the now-flooded floodplain at the confluence of Econfina Creek and a seep spring head (Figures 5 and 107). The site was discovered while surveying the high probability landform when aboriginal lithic and ceramic artifacts were recovered from the surface of a turn-around and four shovel tests. A general soil profile for the site consists of 10-12 cm of grayish brown (10YR 5/2) to gray (10YR 6/1) sand (Stratum I), 60 to 70 cm of yellowish brown

174 (10YR 5/8) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6-6/8) sand (Stratum II), and a layer of light brownish yellow (10YR 6/4) sand (Stratum III) that extended to below 100 cm in depth. 8BY1310 covers an area approximately 170 m in length along the point-like landform.

Figure 107. 8BY1310 site map.

Shovel testing was conducted at 40-m intervals along the center of the point with the assumption that the estimated site boundaries are defined by wetlands that surround three sides of the landform. Prehistoric cultural materials recovered from 8BY1310 (Table 20) include a ½ to 1-inch chert (n=17) and quartzite (n=2) non-cortical debitage and sand-tempered check-stamped (n=2) and plain (n=10) ceramic vessel fragments. One check stamped rim sherd and one plain rim sherd are excurvate and slightly folded with a distinguishing single incised line, which is suggestive of the Weeden Island types Wakulla Check Stamped and Weeden Island Plain. These sherds are not conclusively diagnostic, however, and could be Deptford types.

The prehistoric component is considered the remnants of camp-level occupations or a small village dating to the Early (Deptford) or Late (Weeden Island) Woodland periods. Despite the lack of clearly diagnostic artifacts, 8BY1310 should be considered potentially eligible for NRHP nomination until it can be formally tested and evaluated for the potential presence of stratified components and archaeological features.

175

Table 20. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8BY1310. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) sand-tempered check stamped (poss. General Surface n/a n/a 1 Wakulla Check Stamped), rim with incised line General Surface n/a n/a 1 sand-tempered check stamped, body sherd General Surface n/a n/a 2 sand-tempered plain, body sherd General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.5” chert debitage, tertiary flakes Shovel Test 1 II 30-40 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 1 II 30-40 2 1” chert debitage, tertiary flakes Shovel Test 1 II 30-40 1 1” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 1 II 30-40 2 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 2 II 30-50 1 sherdlet, sand-tempered plain Shovel Test 2 II 30-50 2 1” chert debitage, tertiary flakes Shovel Test 2 II 30-50 1 1” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 2 II 30-50 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 3 I-II 20-40 4 sand-tempered plain, rim sherds Shovel Test 3 I-II 20-40 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd Shovel Test 3 I-II 20-40 3 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flakes Shovel Test 3 I-II 20-40 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 I-II 20-40 2 sand-tempered plain, body sherds Shovel Test 4 I-II 20-40 1 1” chert debitage, tertiary flake Shovel Test 4 I-II 20-40 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake Shovel Test 4 I-II 20-40 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake

8BY1311

Site Type: aboriginal ceramic and lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland (Weeden Island) USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T1S, R13W, Section 32 Elevation: 15-25 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe and slope on west side of Econfina Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Econfina Creek/20-40 m east Soil Classification: Foxworth sand, 0-5 and 5-8 percent slopes Present Vegetation: mixed secondary and mature hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1311 is a somewhat disturbed, apparent light density aboriginal ceramic and lithic scatter site located on a ridge toe slope along Econfina Creek where a power line right-of-way (ROW) crosses the Econfina (Figures 5 and 108). The site was discovered during pedestrian survey when lithic and ceramic artifacts were recovered from eroded areas of the ROW and old boat launch access logging road that extends down the ridge toe. Two shovel tests were excavated south of the surface scatter, but

176 both were negative. Based on the distribution of surface artifacts, 8BY1311 appears to cover an area approximately 50 m in diameter.

Figure 108. Photograph of the 8BY1311 site area south of the power line ROW; view to the north toward the ROW.

Cultural materials recovered from 8BY1311 include a Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd, sand-tempered plain vessel body sherds (n=4), and ½-inch chert (n=2) non- cortical debitage (Table 21). The site is considered the remnants of a Weeden Island period campsite. Disturbance to the site area, resulting from ROW and access road clearing, and subsequent erosion appears to have impacted this artifact scatter negatively. We did not, however, formally evaluate 8BY1311, and recommend further investigation should the site area be scheduled for development or reforestation.

Table 21. Artifacts Recovered from Sites 8BY1311 and 8BY1313. Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 8BY1311 General Surface n/a n/a 1 Wakulla Check Stamped, rim sherd 8BY1311 General Surface n/a n/a 4 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 8BY1311 General Surface n/a n/a 2 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flakes

177 Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 8BY1313 Shovel Test 1 II 40-50 1 1.5” chert debitage, core trimming element 8BY1313 Shovel Test 1 II 40-50 1 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8BY1313 Shovel Test 1 II 40-50 1 0.5” chert debitage, tertiary flake 8BY1313 Shovel Test 1 II 40-50 1 0.5” quartzite debitage, biface thinning flake 8BY1313 Shovel Test 2 II 40-50 2 1” chert secondary decortication flake chert distal biface fragment, broad bladed 8BY1313 Shovel Test 2 II 40-50 1 point/ biface 8BY1313 Shovel Test 2 II 40-50 8 fired clay object fragments 8BY1313 Shovel Test 2 II 40-50 1 fiber-tempered plain vessel body sherd

8BY1312

Site Type: earthworks and portable sawmill artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: early- to mid-twentieth-century American USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T1S, R13W, Section 32 Elevation: 20 ft. amsl Landform: terrace between low order streams at Econfina Creek floodplain Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: unnamed streams/<20 m north and south Soil Classification: Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soils Present Vegetation: mixed hardwood and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1312 is an undefined earthwork and scatter of apparent early- to mid- twentieth-century artifacts located on the lower end of a ridge toe that slopes southeastward to the Econfina Creek floodplain (Figures 5 and 109). The landform holding the site is bordered by two low order streams that flow into the Econfina. The earthwork consists of a 120 to 130-m long, 10 to 12-m wide tram-like structure that crosses the ridge toe from north-northwest to south-southeast, but does not extend beyond either low order stream. The upslope side of the elevated structure is ditched, giving the earthwork the appearance of a water-diversion structure that would have channeled water from the northern stream to the southern stream. The earthwork and ditch are overgrown with mature oak trees, some of which are estimated to be 50 to 100 years in age. Artifacts observed in association with the earthwork consist of deteriorated ferrous metal drum (n=1) and fuel can (n=3) fragments, ferrous metal cable, clear (n=2) and amethyst (n=1) glass bottle fragments, and deteriorating cinder blocks.

Badly deteriorated cypress boards and cut stumps are scattered around the site area and may indicate that a portable saw mill was once located there, but the function and the association of the earthwork is not clear. PCI recommends that the Northwest Florida Water Management District treat site 8BY1312 as potentially eligible for the NRHP until the site is formally evaluated.

178

Figure 109. Photograph of the earthworks at 8BY1312, view to the northwest.

8BY1313

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Late Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 6 Elevation: 10-15 ft. amsl Landform: point-like terrace segment on north side of Cedar Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Cedar Creek/50 m southwest Soil Classification: Hurricane sand Present Vegetation: mixed secondary and mature hardwoods and pine NRHP Eligibility: potentially eligible

Site 8BY1313 is a light-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter on a point- like terrace segment that slopes to the southwest between two low order streams toward Cedar Creek (Figures 5 and 110). The site was discovered while shovel testing the high probability area. Three shovel tests were excavated at 40-m intervals across the center of the landform. STs 1 and 2 resulted in the recovery of chert debitage, a chert distal biface or point fragment, a single fiber-tempered plain vessel body sherd, and fired clay object fragments. Based on the landform and positive STs 1 and 2, 8BY1313 appears to cover an area approximately 90 m in diameter near the lower end of the point.

179

Figure 110. 8BY1313 site map.

A general soil profile recorded for the site consists of 15-20 cm of gray (10YR 6/1) to light gray (10YR 7/1) sand (Stratum I), 60 to 80 cm of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sand (Stratum II), and a layer of light brownish yellow (10YR 6/4-6/6) sand (Stratum III) that extended to below 100 cm in depth. Cultural materials recovered consistently between 40 and 50 cmbs on 8BY1313. Artifacts recovered (see Table 21) include a chert distal fragment of a broad-bladed point or biface, ½ to 1½-inch chert (n=3) and quartzite (n=1) non-cortical debitage, and 1-inch chert secondary decortication flakes (n=2), a small fiber-tempered plain body sherd, and fired clay object fragments. The presence of a chert core trimming element (flake) and two chert secondary decortication flakes indicate that at least one chert core was worked at the site, and the fired clay object fragments may indicate the presence of an earthen oven or hearth.

The site is considered the remnants of an aboriginal campsite dating to the Late Archaic period. While the site is small, it produced one diagnostic artifact, appears to be intact, and may contain features. The concentration of fired clay suggests that hearths and/or earthen ovens may be present. 8BY1313 may be eligible for NRHP nomination under Criterion D.

180

8BY1314

Site Type: aboriginal lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: unidentified, probable Late Archaic USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 6 Elevation: 15-20 ft. amsl Landform: ridge toe on north side of unnamed low order stream Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: unnamed stream/50 m south Soil Classification: Hurricane and Pottsburg sand Present Vegetation: mixed secondary and mature turkey oak and pine NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1314 is a light-density aboriginal lithic scatter on the lower end of a ridge toe segment that slopes to the south toward an unnamed low order stream that flows to the west-southwest into Cedar Creek (Figures 5 and 111). The site was discovered while shovel testing the high probability area. Four shovel tests were excavated at 40-m intervals across the center of the landform holding the site and STs 1 and 2 resulted in the recovery of chert debitage. Based on the positive shovel tests and the character of the landform, 8BY1314 appears to cover an area 100-x-120 m.

A general soil profile recorded for 8BY1314 consists of 15-20 cm of gray (10YR 6/1) to light gray (10YR 7/1) sand (Stratum I) and 80 to 85 cm of light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sand (Stratum II) that extended to below 100 cm in depth. Artifacts recovered (Table 22) consist of ¼ and ½-inch chert debitage (n=5). The site is considered to be the remnants of an aboriginal campsite dating to an unspecified period of the Archaic Stage. While the site is small and did not produce diagnostic artifacts, it appears to be intact. PCI recommends that the Northwest Florida Water Management District treat site 8BY1314 as potentially eligible for the NRHP until the site is formally evaluated.

181

Figure 111. 8BY1314 site map.

8BY1315

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland (Weeden Island?) USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 6 Elevation: 10-15 ft amsl Landform: terrace point at confluence of Cedar Creek and unnamed stream Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Cedar Creek/<100-m south and west Soil Classification: Hurricane sand Present Vegetation: hardwood hammock, live oak and water oak dominate NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1315 is a low- to moderate-density aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter on a terrace segment above the confluence of Cedar Creek and an unnamed stream (Figures 5 and 112). The site was discovered while surveying the high probability

182 landform when aboriginal lithic and ceramic artifacts were recovered in three of five shovel tests. A general soil profile for the site consists of 10-20 cm of light gray (10YR 7/1) to gray (10YR 6/1) sand (Stratum I) and 80 to 90 cm of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6-6/8) sand (Stratum II) that extended to below 100 cm in depth. 8BY1315 appears to cover an area 100 m in diameter.

Figure 112. 8BY1315 site map.

Shovel testing was conducted at 40-m intervals across the center of the area with the assumption that the site boundaries are defined by wetlands that surround three sides of the landform. Prehistoric cultural materials recovered from 8BY1315 (Table 22) include a 1-inch chert tertiary flake, sand-tempered plain (n=7) and incised (n=1) ceramic vessel body fragments. The sherds are not conclusively diagnostic, but the incised sherd resembles Carrabelle Incised, a Weeden Island type. The prehistoric component is considered to be remnants of camp-level occupations or a small village most likely dating to the Late (Weeden Island) Woodland period. Despite the lack of clearly diagnostic artifacts, PCI recommends that the Northwest Florida Water Management District consider 8BY1315 as potentially eligible for NRHP nomination until the site can be formally tested and evaluated for the potential presence of stratified components and archaeological features

Table 22. Artifacts Recovered from Sites 8BY1314 through 8BY1316. Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 8BY1314 Shovel Test 1 II 10-30 1 0.5” chert debitage, biface thinning flake 8BY1314 Shovel Test 1 II 30-50 1 0.5” chert debitage, tertiary flake

183 Site Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description Number (cmbs) 8BY1314 Shovel Test 1 II 30-50 1 0.25” chert debitage, tertiary flake 8BY1314 Shovel Test 2 II 10-30 1 0.5” chert debitage, tertiary flake 8BY1314 Shovel Test 2 II 30-50 1 0.25” chert debitage, tertiary flake

8BY1315 Shovel Test 1 II 10-30 3 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 8BY1315 Shovel Test 3 II 10-30 2 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 8BY1315 Shovel Test 3 II 10-30 1 sherdlet, sand-tempered plain 8BY1315 Shovel Test 4 II 10-30 1 sand-tempered incised, body sherd 8BY1315 Shovel Test 4 II 10-30 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd 1” chert debitage, biface thinning flake, 8BY1315 Shovel Test 4 II 30-50 1 thermally altered

8BY1316 Shovel Test 1 II 20-50 2 sand-tempered plain, body sherds 8BY1316 Shovel Test 2 II 20-50 1 sand-tempered plain, body sherd sand-tempered check stamped, body 8BY1316 Shovel Test 2 II 20-50 1 sherd

8BY1316

Site Type: aboriginal lithic and ceramic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Woodland (possibly Deptford or Weeden Island) USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bayhead, Florida; T2S, R13W, Section 6 Elevation: 10 ft. amsl Landform: terrace on Cedar Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Cedar Creek/<50 m west Soil Classification: Hurricane sand Present Vegetation: remnants of hardwood hammock, recently clear cut NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1316 is an apparent low-density aboriginal ceramic scatter located on a terrace segment situated along Cedar Creek (Figures 5 and 113). The site was discovered while surveying the high probability landform when ceramic artifacts were recovered in two of five shovel tests. A general soil profile for the site consists of 10-20 cm of light gray (10YR 7/1) to gray (10YR 6/1) sand (Stratum I) and 80 to 90 cm of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6-6/8) sand (Stratum II) that extended to below 100 cm in depth. 8BY1316 appears to cover an area 60-x-80 m in size.

Shovel testing was conducted at 40-m intervals across the center of the site along the Cedar Creek wetlands. Prehistoric cultural materials recovered from 8BY1316 (see Table 22) include sand-tempered plain (n=3) and check-stamped (n=1) ceramic vessel body fragments. The sherds are not diagnostic, but the check-stamped sherd resembles Deptford or Weeden Island check-stamped types. The prehistoric component is considered the remnants of camp-level occupations or a small village most likely dating to either the Early (Deptford) or Late (Weeden Island) Woodland period. Although

184 8BY1316 does not appear to meet the minimum criteria for NRHP nomination (Criterion D) due to the light density of materials present, the disturbed nature of the site (partial clear-cutting, erosion, impacts from trail use), and the apparent lack of research potential, the site was not formally evaluated.

Figure 113. 8BY1316 site map.

SITES RECORDED OUTSIDE OF THE CARTER AND HOBB’S PASTURE ADDITION TRACTS

Introduction

In our research on the Gainer family history, two sites were pointed out and described as the homesteads of William Gainer’s second son, William A. Gainer (8BY1330) and one of his grandsons, Thomas E. Gainer (8WS474). Both sites were shovel tested and recorded, but were not formally evaluated. Each site is located on private property adjacent to District lands.

185 Site Descriptions

8BY1330

Site Type: historic artifact scatter, William Augustus Gainer homestead Cultural Affiliation: American late- nineteenth- to mid-twentieth-century USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bennett, Florida; T1S, R13W, Section 3 Elevation: 110-110 ft. amsl Landform: upland plateau adjacent to unnamed steephead creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: unnamed spring /70 m northwest Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: partially cleared hardwood hammock, pine and oak forest NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

Site 8BY1330 is a partially disturbed, moderate-density scatter of historic artifacts associated with the reported site of the second William A. Gainer homestead. The site is located just north of State Road 20 to the east of Econfina Creek on a plateau area adjacent to a steephead and spring. BLM GLO records indicate that this site is located adjacent to, but at least 50 m east of the 1916 homestead patent (BLM GLO Records Accession No. 537853) issued to Sarah A. and William A. Gainer (Figure 114). William A. Gainer died in 1912 and Sarah A. Gainer died in 1918. 8BY1330 is located 1.3 km south-southeast of William A. Gainer’s 1861 patent and likely first homestead site on the east side of Econfina Creek in the northwest quarter of Section 34 (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL0290__.419). The fact that the 1916 patent lists Sarah A. Gainer first may indicate that William A. Gainer was in ill health when the patent was applied for in 1911. It is also likely that the couple resided on the property by 1911 and perhaps some years prior to that time.

Four shovel tests were excavated on the site and a surface collection was made on a power line access road and cleared areas within the site area (Figure 115). Three of the four shovel tests contained historic artifacts that, along with surface artifacts, include Kitchen Group glass and ceramics, architectural materials such as brick and limestone block fragments, wire and square nails, and window glass, and other artifacts (Table 23). Artifacts usually thought to predate the 1880s were not recovered. The artifacts recovered and the background data indicate that this homestead was occupied during the late nineteenth century and into the middle twentieth century, well after the death of Sarah Gainer in 1918. The 1944 Bennett USGS quadrangle clearly depicts a structure and active roads where site 8BY1330 is located (Figure 116). If 8BY1330 is indeed the final residence of William A. and Sarah A. Gainer, it is apparent that someone lived on the property after their deaths until at least the mid-1940s.

186

Figure 114. Photograph of William A. and Sarah A. Gainer taken shortly before William A. Gainer’s death in 1912. (from Gainer family reunion literature, courtesy of Brian Chambless).

Although site 8BY1330 was not formally evaluated, PCI recommends that the site be considered potentially eligible for the NRHP until a formal site evaluation can be completed. The site has been disturbed by power line construction and the associated access road, but it also contains buried, substantial artifact deposits. Because the site is located just to the east of the 1916 Sarah A. and William A. Gainer homestead patent, a thorough historic documents background search should be conducted to determine if the site is actually the William A. and Sarah A. Gainer homestead.

187

Figure 115. 8BY1330 site map.

Figure 116. Detail from the 1944 USGS Bennett quadrangle showing the 8BY1330 and 8WS474 site locations.

188

Table 23. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8BY1330. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) undecorated whiteware, 3 rim fragments, 1 Gen. Surface n/a n/a 4 body green and black hand-painted whiteware, Gen. Surface n/a n/a 1 rim Gen. Surface n/a n/a 2 green alkaline-glazed stoneware, body Gen. Surface n/a n/a 1 iron chisel or axe blade Gen. Surface n/a n/a 3 aquamarine glass, curved bottle fragments Gen. Surface n/a n/a 1 aquamarine window glass amethyst glass, curved bottle fragments, 1 Gen. Surface n/a n/a 6 is embossed green-glazed molded stoneware, pipe bowl ST 1 I 0-30 1 fragment ST 1 I 0-30 2 iron wire nails ST 1 I 0-30 2 iron cut nails ST 1 I 0-30 1 ferrous metal button ST 1 I 0-30 1 amethyst glass, curved bottle fragment ST 1 I 0-30 2 clear glass, curved container body fragment ST 2 I 0-30 1 undecorated whiteware, body fragment ST 2 I 0-30 4 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragments ST 2 I 0-30 2 amethyst glass, curved bottle fragments ST 2 I 0-30 1 soda-lime glass, curved bottle fragment ST 4 I 0-25 I undecorated whiteware, body fragment ST 4 I 0-25 2 iron wire nails ST 4 I 0-25 2 iron wire roofing nails ST 4 I 0-25 3 iron cut nail fragments ST 4 I 0-25 1 brass bullet casing, .22 caliber, rim fired ST 4 I 0-25 1 amber, curved vessel body fragment ST 4 I 0-25 1 white glass, curved container fragment ST 4 I 0-25 2 green tinted window glass ST 4 I 0-25 3 clear glass, curved bottle fragments ST 4 I 0-25 1 amethyst glass, curved bottle fragment

8WS474

Site Type: historic artifact scatter, Thomas E. Gainer homestead Cultural Affiliation: American late-nineteenth- to mid-twentieth-century USGS Quadrangle Reference: 1982 Bennett, Florida; T1N, R13W, Section 33 Elevation: 25-30 ft. amsl Landform: upper terrace on Econfina Creek Nearest Water Source / Distance and Direction: Econfina Creek /120 m east Soil Classification: Lakeland sand, 0-5 percent slopes Present Vegetation: partially cleared hardwood hammock, pine and oak forest NRHP Eligibility: not evaluated

189 Site 8WS474 is a light- to moderate-density scatter of historic artifacts associated with the reported site of the Thomas E. Gainer homestead. The site is located along the west side of Econfina Creek approximately 0.75 miles (1.5 km) south of the Gainer Cemetery (8WS515) and homestead (8WS514) sites (see Figures 2 and 3). BLM GLO records indicate that this site is located within the 1837 patent issued to William Gainer (BLM GLO Records Accession No. FL0130__.041).

Thirteen shovel tests were excavated in the site area with eight situated with the apparent site boundaries. A surface collection was also conducted along an abandoned road and cleared areas on the western margins of the site (Figure 117). Six of the 13 shovel tests contained historic artifacts, which combined with surface artifacts, include Kitchen Group glass and ceramics, architectural materials such as brick and limestone block fragments, wire and square nails, and window glass, and other artifacts (Table 24). A 10-m diameter razed structure pile with numerous limestone block or brick fragments is present on the site around ST 10. The artifacts recovered and the background information indicates that this homestead was occupied during the late nineteenth century and into the early to mid twentieth century. The 1944 Bennett USGS quadrangle does not depict a structure in the 8WS474 site area (see Figure 115).

Figure 117. 8WS474 site map.

190

Table 24. Artifacts Recovered from Site 8WS474. Depth Provenience Stratum Count Artifact Description (cmbs) General undecorated whiteware, 2 rim fragments, 1 n/a n/a 3 Surface body fragment General n/a n/a 1 blue hand-painted whiteware, body fragment Surface undecorated whiteware, cup handle ST 6 I 0-20 1 fragment ST 6 I 0-20 1 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragment ST 6 I 0-20 1 amber, curved vessel body fragment ST 6 I 0-20 1 aquamarine, curved vessel body fragment ST 6 I 0-20 1 amethyst, curved vessel body fragment ST 6 I 0-20 1 slate ST 7 I 0-21 1 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragment ST 7 I 0-21 1 ferrous metal bastard file ST 10 I 0-30 1 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragment ST 10 I 0-30 2 iron cut nails ST 10 I 0-30 3 amber, curved vessel body fragments ST 10 I 0-30 1 clear window glass ST 10 I 0-30 1 melted glass fragment ST 11 I 0-35 1 undecorated whiteware, body fragment ST 11 I 0-35 2 ferrous metal fencing wire fragments ST 11 I 0-35 1 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragment ST 11 I 0-35 1 brass bullet casing, .32 caliber, center fired ST 11 I 0-35 3 clear, curved vessel body fragments ST 11 I 0-35 1 aquamarine flat glass, (window?) ST 13 I 0-30 2 undecorated whiteware, body fragments ST 13 I 0-30 1 green transfer-print whiteware, rim fragment ST 13 I 0-30 4 iron wire nails ST 13 I 0-30 10 undifferentiated ferrous metal fragments ST 13 I 0-30 3 clear window glass ST 13 I 0-30 1 dark aquamarine, base bottle fragment ST 13 I 0-30 1 amber, curved vessel body fragment

Site 8WS474 should be considered potentially eligible for NRHP nomination until it can be formally tested and evaluated. The house remains were apparently razed, but buried, and substantial artifact deposits are present. A thorough historic documents background search should be conducted to determine if the site is actually the Thomas E. Gainer homestead.

191

This page intentionally left blank..

192 CHAPTER 7

PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATIONS IN THE CARTER AND HOBB’S PASTURE ADDITION TRACTS

INTRODUCTION

Various models for archaeological site location in northwest Florida developed since the 1980s are applicable to the Econfina Creek WMA. Extensive surveys on Eglin and Tyndall Air Force bases have enlarged the known archaeological site sample base for northwest Florida. Mikell et al. (1989), Phillips (1995), and Thomas and Campbell (1993) have each indicated that sites generally tend to occur on well-drained, level to gently sloping settings near potable water. The Eglin and Tyndall survey data have documented a preference by prehistoric populations for the coastal strip along local estuarine waters (bay, bayou, and sound), at the upland-lowlands juncture, and in the uplands near permanent, potable water. Prehistoric sites on both Eglin and Tyndall are most likely to occur within 150 m of fresh water, at an elevation of less than 50 ft. above the water source. A similar pattern has also emerged from all other pertinent surveys in the project area (Athens et al. 1993; Mikell 1993b, 1994b), including the Econfina Creek and Choctawhatchee River WMA areas (Mikell 2001a; Mikell and Shoemaker 2002).

Although specific topographic settings, water sources, vegetative communities, and soil characteristics vary somewhat within or between any particular survey areas in northwest Florida, prehistoric and early historic sites tend to be located in transitional zones where several microenvironments can be exploited. Prehistoric and early historic sites are, as a rule, closely associated with well-drained landforms near potable water, however. More recent historic sites are often located in areas not as closely associated with water sources. The northwest Florida site location model for sites less than 150 years in age includes greater distances from water on a wider range of topographic settings, as well as more traditional settings (Athens et al. 1993; Mikell 2000; Phillips and Anderson 2000).

SITE DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis of archaeological and environmental data for the newly and previously recorded sites associated with the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts indicates that archaeological sites likely to occur on District land are associated with a limited set of environmental variables. These variables include topographic setting, soil characteristics and type, and water sources. Each of these variables is detailed below.

Topographic Setting

The sites analyzed for the predictive model occur on six topographic settings: plateau, ridge toe, ridge crest, ridge slope, and terrace. The majority of the sites (67.3

193 percent) are found in terrace and ridge toe settings a combination of the two. The remaining sites are located on ridge slopes (10.2 percent), minor ridge crests (8.2 percent), wetlands (8.2 percent), and plateaus (6.1 percent). Of the sites in this group, 90 percent were found on level to gently sloping terrain with less than 5 percent slope, seven percent are in gently sloping areas with combined 0 to 5 and 5 to 8 percent slope, and three percent are on terrain with 5 to 8 percent slope.

Soils and Soil Drainage Characteristics

The paramount soil attribute favoring site location appears to be drainage characteristics. With the exception of one site, all of the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts sites are located on well-drained soils such as Lakeland, Foxworth, Centenary, Troup, Hurricane, and Pottsburg sand. The only site located on somewhat poorly to poorly drained and occasionally flooded Rutlege-Pamlico Complex sandy soil is a historic temporary saw mill. Based on our survey data, in the Carter Tract sites occur most frequently on the following well-drained soil types: Lakeland sand (73.6 percent), Foxworth sand (18.8 percent), Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soil (3.8 percent), Centenary sand (1.9 percent), and Pottsburg sand (1.9 percent). Sites in the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract occur most frequently on well-drained Foxworth (33.3 percent) and Centenary sand (8.3 percent) and less well-drained Hurricane sand (33.3 percent), Pottsburg sand (16.6 percent), and Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soil (8.3 percent). Lakeland-Eustis association, Lakeland-Foxworth-Centenary, and Hurricane-Chipley- Albany association soils are clearly the highest probability soils for archaeological site occurrence within the Econfina Creek WMA in general (also see Mikell 2001).

Water Source

Many historic sites and the vast majority of prehistoric sites are located near good sources of potable water such as springs, low order streams, and rivers. The type of water appears to be far less important in predicting site location than its proximity to the site. All of the sites analyzed in this study are located within 200 m of potable water. The majority (85 percent) are within 100 m of water and only three prehistoric sites are situated 150 m or more from a water source. Four historic sites are more than 150 m from the nearest potable water source.

A second pattern related to water sources is the importance of karst topography lakes and the many springs along Econfina Creek in Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement patterns. As Waller and Dunbar (1977) and others have pointed out, springs and spring-fed lakes were often the only water sources available to Paleoindian populations and the animals they hunted. This pattern may have also extended in to the Early Archaic, at least periodically when drought lower lake and stream levels well below what we witness today. Within the Carter Tract there is evidence of potential preceramic Archaic sites on and above the now often inundated shorelines of water sources such as Black Pond, Deep Edge Pond, Dykes Mill Pond, Pine Log Creek, and several unnamed smaller sink hole ponds. Although no conclusive evidence was recovered during the

194 current survey, it is likely that at least a few of these lithic scatter sites contain Paleoindian components.

ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS/HPAS

Analysis of the compiled archaeological site environmental data is used here to define a relatively narrow range of physiographic variables that appear to be consistently associated with a wide range of archaeological site types, regardless of cultural affiliation. In general terms, the data indicates that archaeologically sensitive areas within the District’s holdings (specifically, the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts) include virtually all locations where moderately well-drained to well-drained soils on level to gently sloping topographic features are located in proximity (within 150 m) to potable water sources. Of particular note as archaeologically sensitive areas (HPAs) are the terrace formations and ridge toes situated in the transition zone between ridge slopes and the floodplains along Pine Log Creek, Econfina Creek, and Cedar Creek and ridge toe/terrace formations on sinkhole lakes and ponds. Although many sites located on non- terraced lakeshores have been heavily impacted by sheet erosion, gently sloping to level lakeshore areas also are notably sensitive areas.

In the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts, archaeological sites are consistently found on the following topographic features or landforms:

1) stream terraces 2) lower ridge slopes and ridge toes 3) ridge crests, ridge slopes, and plateaus (historic only) 4) elevated, moderately well-drained to well-drained floodplain knolls

Moderately well-drained to excessively well-drained soils often associated with archaeologically sensitive areas and a high probability for the occurrence of archaeological sites includes the level phases of the following soil types:

1) Lakeland sand 2) Foxworth sand 3) Centenary sand 4) Hurricane sand

Less well-drained soils, which are less often associated with the occurrence of archaeological sites, but where sites in the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts have been recorded include the following:

1) Pottsburg sand 2) Rutlege-Pamlico Complex soil (historic canals and water control structures only)

195 Prehistoric and early historic sites in northwest Florida consistently occur in proximity to one or more a potable water sources. Generally sites are located within 200 m and 50 ft. in elevation of the nearest source. There are virtually no prehistoric or early historic sites in northwest Florida that are located more than 500 m from a water source. More recent historic sites may not follow this pattern and are not as closely associated with the physiographic variables defined for earlier sites. Bridges, ferry landings, and logging and turpentine industry camps, for example, are often located in low probability zones in wetlands or uplands away from water. The use of wells also allowed for settlement away from surface water sources during the more recent past. These later historic sites can only be located with documentary and archaeological evidence that is beyond the scope of the model presented here.

The HPAs located within and immediately adjacent to Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts contain the following characteristics:

1) well-drained soils (primarily Lakeland-Eustis and Lakeland-Foxworth Centenary association soils) 2) relatively less well-drained soils (Hurricane-Chipley-Albany and Blanton- Kiej-Plummer association soils) 3) level to gently sloping landforms 4) proximity to an identified potable water source (within 200 m [656 ft.])

MODEL SUMMARY AND UTILITY

The model of archaeological sites location for the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts represents a generalized picture of settlement and land use over the past 8,000 years. Although increases in water level, erosion, and sedimentation have obscured much of the earlier land use and settlement evidence, there is evidence of sites dating to the Archaic Stage in the project areas. The HPAs define archaeologically sensitive zones where there is a greater probability for the occurrence of archaeological sites relative to other areas. HPAs are defined as level to gently sloping landforms in proximity to potable water where well-drained soils are present. The model is intended to be a research and management tool to be used to guide research and management considerations in regard to the potential for archaeological resources.

As is the case with any predictive model, there are inherent strengths and weaknesses. The greatest strength of the model is that the majority of archeological sites will be located in the defined HPAs. The first notable weakness of the model is an inherent bias toward sites dating to between about 8,000 and 6,000 years before the present, as well as certain historic sites. Because the current state of research is weak in regard to the paleoenvironment and early prehistoric land use patterns in northwest Florida, the model does not define buried or submerged environments as archaeologically sensitive. The model also does not address the potential for later historic sites, such as logging camps, which often do not conform to the defined variables. Early prehistoric and later historic sites can only be identified by field survey and/or archival research,

196 respectively. A second weakness of note is that low probability areas within the Econfina Creek WMA have not been adequately defined or tested. This situation results from the limited ability to address such concerns during reconnaissance-level surveys, where the emphasis is placed on locating sites rather than demonstrating where sites are not located.

The utility of the model is readily apparent for the District’s parcels of land contained within the Carter Tract. The approximately 2,155 acres of the Carter Tract holds an estimated 980 acres of archaeologically sensitive property. During the current survey, 32 sites were located within or immediately adjacent to District property situated within the Carter Tract. If systematic shovel testing was conducted within the HPAs in this area, the number of new sites would likely equal or exceed the number found during initial reconnaissance.

197

This page intentionally left blank.

198 CHAPTER 8

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION

The archaeological survey of the District’s land holdings within and adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts was designed to identify and record a large sample of sites and gather the data for necessary to construct a predictive model and develop a plan for managing the District’s cultural resources. The survey included extensive background research, field survey, site evaluations, and predictive modeling. This chapter summarizes the results of the Carter Tract and Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract surveys, the results of testing and evaluation conducted at sites 8BY989, 8WS524, 8WS539, and 8WS581, and provides recommendations for management of the cultural resources on District land in the project area

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

The reconnaissance survey of the Carter Tract resulted in the identification of 29 previously unrecorded sites and revisits of recently recorded sites 8WS468 through 8WS470. Of the 32 total sites, nine date to the historic late nineteenth and/or early to mid twentieth century, 11 are prehistoric lithic scatters, and 12 are prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatters (Table 25). Historic sites include three homestead sites, a scatter of artifacts associated with an early-twentieth-century school, a probable outbuilding or dump associated with a homestead, and canal or water-control device sites associated with canals. With few exceptions, the Carter Tract prehistoric sites appear to be light- density, diffuse to somewhat diffuse scatters representing non-intensive occupations.

Although Mikell (2001a) recorded 125 sites during a reconnaissance survey of the Econfina Creek WMA, only a limited number of sites were recorded in the Hobb’s Pasture portion of the Econfina Creek WMA. The current survey resulted in the recordation of nine sites in the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract (Table 26). Of the sites recorded during the current project in the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract, eight are prehistoric sites and one is an early- to mid-twentieth-century earthworks and portable sawmill site. Prehistoric sites recorded include lithic scatters considered to be probable Archaic sites (n=2) and lithic and ceramic scatter sites (n=6).

In addition to the sites recorded in the Carter and Hobb’s Pasture Addition tracts, two homestead sites were recorded on private property adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA in the vicinity of SR 20. The sites include two Gainer family member homestead artifact scatters, 8BY1330 and 8WS474, pointed out by informants (Table 27).

199 Table 25. Summary of Sites Recorded within the Carter Tract.

Site Number Site Type Evaluation 8WS468 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Weeden Island no evaluation 8WS469 historic 20th century water control device on canal no evaluation 8WS470 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Deptford/Weeden Island (?) no evaluation historic standing structure, early 20th century Elizabeth Dykes potentially 8WS471 homestead eligible 8WS472 historic late 19th century canal no evaluation 8WS473 historic early 20th century artifact scatter; Greenhead School no evaluation 8WS1006 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1007 prehistoric ceramic scatter; Deptford or Weeden Island (?) no evaluation 8WS1008 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1009 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1010 prehistoric ceramic scatter; Weeden Island (?) no evaluation 8WS1011 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter, Woodland no evaluation 8WS1012 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter, Woodland no evaluation 8WS1013 prehistoric ceramic scatter, Deptford or Santa Rosa/Swift Creek (?) no evaluation 8WS1014 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter, Deptford (?) no evaluation 8WS1015 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1016 prehistoric ceramic scatter, Woodland no evaluation 8WS1017 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1018 historic early 20th century homestead artifact scatter no evaluation 8WS1019 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter, Woodland no evaluation 8WS1020 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1021 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1022 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1023 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation historic early 20th century homestead artifact scatter; James G.W. 8WS1024 no evaluation Dykes homestead 8WS1025 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1026 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; Weeden Island (?) no evaluation 8WS1027 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8WS1028 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter, Woodland no evaluation 8WS1029 historic early 20th century artifact scatter no evaluation 8WS1030 historic 20th century canal and water control devices no evaluation 8WS1031 historic 20th century canal and water control devices no evaluation

200 Table 26. Summary of Sites Recorded Within the Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract during the Current Survey. Site Number Site Type Evaluation prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter; 20th century historic artifact potentially 8BY1308 scatter, well and dock eligible 8BY1309 prehistoric lithic scatter, probable Archaic no evaluation 8BY1310 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter no evaluation 8BY1311 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter no evaluation 8BY1312 historic 20th century earthworks and portable sawmill no evaluation potentially 8BY1313 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter eligible 8BY1314 prehistoric lithic scatter no evaluation 8BY1315 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter no evaluation 8BY1316 prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter no evaluation

Table 27. Newly Recorded Sites Identified by Local Informants.

Site Number Site Type Evaluation 8BY1330 historic late 19th to early 20th-century homestead artifact scatter no evaluation 8WS474 historic late 19th to early 20th-century homestead artifact scatter no evaluation

The sites subjected to formal testing and evaluation include an early-twentieth- century homestead (8BY989), two nineteenth-century pioneer period homesteads (8WS514 and 8WS581), a nineteenth-century mill site (8WS581), and a prehistoric lithic scatter site (8WS539). Site 8BY989 is last Gainer family homestead site on the Econfina. Site 8WS514 is the nineteenth-century Gainer homestead where William Gainer spent his last days with his son and daughter-in-law, Thomas H. and Eugenia O. Gainer. Whether or not 8WS514 is actually the site of the original Gainer homestead was not firmly established. Site 8WS539, an eroded Archaic lithic scatter site that is not NRHP eligible, was the only prehistoric site tested. Site 8WS581 is the remnants of the Robert C. Adams homestead and mill site. 8WS581 represents a well-preserved pioneer period homestead and associated rural industrial (mill) site.

THE PREDICTIVE MODEL

Based on the archaeological site environmental data compiled during the background research and fieldwork phases of the survey, a relatively narrow range of physiographic variables consistently associated with a wide range of archaeological site types was defined. In general terms, the data indicates that archaeologically sensitive areas within the District’s holdings in the Carter Tract and Hobb’s Pasture Addition Tract Econfina Creek WMA include virtually all locations where moderately well-drained to well-drained soils on level to gently sloping topographic features located in proximity (within 200 m [656 ft.]) to potable water sources exist. Of particular note as archaeologically sensitive areas (HPAs) on District land are the terrace formations at the transition zone between ridge slopes and the floodplains of various streams, swamps, and

201 the edges of natural ponds and sinks. Chapter 7 detailed the predictive model and its application on District lands.

THE ECONFINA SETTLEMENT AREA MULTIPLE HISTORIC PROPERTY SUBMISSION CONCEPT

Figure 118 leaves no doubt that the possibility exists that the remains of numerous nineteenth- and late nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century homestead sites could be documented on properties within and adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA. While Figure 118 is based solely on BLM GLO patent records, other records and documents such as land sale records, tax records, will and deed records, as well as informant interviews could substantially increase the data base for identifying the archaeological remains of numerous homesteads. An example of these types of documents recently reviewed by the author includes portions of William Gainer’s and Elizabeth Gainer Pearson’s wills. William Gainer left all of his land west of the Econfina and north of the Tallahassee Baseline to his daughter Elizabeth Gainer Pearson. In turn, her will provides a hint as to the location of an additional homestead, with the statement “…the east of the SW ¼ of Section 27, Township one Range 13 W, that lying on the west side of Econfina Creek together with the dwelling house….” The property described in Elizabeth Gainer Pearson’s will (personal communication, Brian Chambless, 2006), which is land apparently purchased from Josiah Jones by William Gainer, may contain the homestead site of Josiah Jones, who was an original Econfina settler, or the nineteenth-century home place of Elizabeth Gainer Pearson, or both. Archaeological survey could potentially lead to the documentation of as many as 16 pre-Civil War era homesteads and numerous post- Civil War homestead sites, as well as additional mill and other rural industrial sites associated with the Econfina Settlement community. Many of the early-nineteenth- century landowners were planters who also owned slaves and the remains associated with many slave quarters are likely present within and adjacent to Econfina Creek WMA land. The Econfina Settlement Area Multiple Historic Property Submission could, at a minimum, include the area within 2.5 miles on the east and west sides of Econfina Creek, between Crooms Branch, south of CR 388, north to the Mitchell Mill Creek area (Figure 118).

202

Figure 118. Map of the proposed Econfina Settlement Area Multiple Historic Property Concept area depicting all pre-1900 land patents and post-1900 Gainer Land Patents as based based on BLM GLO records (see Table 28).

203 Table 28. Key to Figure 118. Key Issue BLM Accession Patentee Name Acres Number Year /Serial No. 1 Robert C. Adams 1837 80 FL0110__.296/.297 2 William C. Bryan 1860 80 FL0280__.175 John W. Campbell, John R. W. Clark, Wylie P. 3 1847 80 FL0190__.258 Clark 4 Joseph Croskey 1840 40 FL0150__.409 5 Sharpless Evans 1837 40 FL0120__.150 6 Sharpless Evans 1856 80 FL0250__.228 7 William Evans 1837 40 FL0120__.149 8 William Evans 1841 40 FL0160__.294 9 William Gainer 1837 80 FL0120__.183/.363 10 William Gainer 1837 40 FL0120__.365 11 William Gainer 1838 40 FL0130__.041 12 William Gainer 1856 80 FL0250__.253 13 William Gainer 1856 80 FL0250__.254 14 William A. Gainer 1861 80 FL0290__.419 15 Samuel Gayner (Gainer) 1837 80 FL0120__.436 16 Josiah Jones 1837 160 FL0120__.114/.115 17 Wiley Jones 1838 80 FL0130__.111 18 Angus McQuagge 1856 40 FL0240__.249 19 Samuel H. Mitchell 1837 80 FL0110__.320 40 FL0110__.317 20 Charles T. Porter 1837 40 FL0120__.100 21 Charles T. Porter 1838 80 FL0130__.204 22 Eliza L. Porter 1840 40 FL0150__.478 23 Eliza L. Porter 1840 40 FL0150__.479 24 Elijah Robbins 1846 80 FL0180__.361 25 John J. Russ 1856 40 FL0240__.396 26 Ashley J. Tippins 1856 40 FL0240__.395 27 James Watson 1837 40 FL0120__.094 28 James Watson 1837 80 FL0120__.095 29 James Watson 1837 40 FL0120__.096 30 James Watson 1837 80 FL0120__.163 31 James Watson 1837 40 FL0120__.165 32 James Watson 1837 40 FL0120__.236 33 James Watson 1837 80 FL0120__.116 34 Benjamin B. Brown 1894 120 FL0860__.272 35 Adam Gainer 1891 160 FL0850__.040 36 Archibald J. Gainer 1904 160 FL1070__.343 37 Deliah Gainer 1916 160 525593 38 Eadie Gainer 1910 160 158723 39 Edward L. Gainer 1910 160 114383 40 Edward L. Gainer 1910 80 104355 41 Elizabeth Gainer 1910 160 146133 42 Eugenia O. Gainer 1912 160 249441 43 Josephine Gainer 1912 40 302347 44 Louella Gainer 1915 160 498434 45 Peter Gainer 1909 120 636610 46 Peter Gainer 1916 40 524445 47 Sarah A. Gainer, William A. Gainer 1916 120 537853 48 Thomas E. Gainer 1916 160 507499 49 Walter R. Gainer 1893 120 FL0870__.122 50 Walter R. Gainer 1909 160 870870 51 William B. Gainer 1895 160 FL0890__.387 52 William W. Gainer 1910 160 105190 53 Willis Gainer 1903 160 FL1050__.331

204 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the recommendations made above for individual sites and HPAs, we offer a set of general recommendations for management of the District’s cultural resources. These general recommendations follow:

1) The District should take measures to ensure that known sites and HPAs are not subjected to any clear cut logging, reforestation, road building, or any form of ground disturbing activity until they have been fully evaluated.

2) District management decisions should take archaeologically sensitive areas (HPAs) and previously recorded NRHP eligible and potentially eligible sites into consideration.

3) District land acquisition and acquisition planning should take into consideration areas similar to those defined HPAs on current District land as a model for the potential for additional sites.

4) Sites on privately owned land adjacent to District land could be threatened by development.

5) The District should implement an educational program to promote awareness and appreciation for the cultural resources present on their permitted recreational use and public access lands.

We also recommend an additional future archaeological research goal for the Econfina Creek WMA based on the current project; consideration of lending support to the definition of the Econfina Settlement Historic District. The Northwest Florida Water Management District should consider support of the concept by initiating additional survey of District land with the intent of identifying homesteads or other historic archaeological sites that may be located with the aid of homestead patent records, land sale records, tax records, will and deed records, and additional informant interviews. Survey of adjacent properties could also contribute information relevant to an Econfina Settlement Historic District. In this regard, the District could take measures to educate private property owners who own land adjacent to the Econfina Creek WMA by way of literature related to the potential project. Community and private property owner participation would be essential to recording sites on private lands.

205

This page intentionally left blank.

206 REFERENCES CITED

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather the Tree. In Alternate Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp. 85-118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 1.

Anderson, David G. (editor) 1996 Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia, South Carolina.

Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Athens, William P., Susan B. Smith, Paul V. Heinrich, Thomas Fenn, Charlotte Donald, Steve Hinks, Jon Berkin, Jennifer Cohen, Dan Dolensky, Lynn Berg, and Thomas Neumann 1993 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the 453.18 KM (281.60 mi) Florida Portion of the Proposed Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase III Expansion (Draft Report). Goodwin and Associates, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Baugher-Perlin, Sherene 1982 Analyzing Glass Bottles for Chronology, Function, and Trade Networks. In Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 259-290. Academic Press, New York.

Bense, Judith A. 1985 Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida. Report of Investigations 7. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States, Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, New York.

Bense, Judith A. (editor) 1999 Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Brose, David S. 1984 Mississippian Period Cultures in Northwest Florida. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 165-197. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

207 Brose, David S., and George Percy 1978 Fort Walton Settlement Patterns. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce Smith. Academic Press, New York.

Carswell, Elba W. 1974 Tempestuous Triangle, Historical Notes on Washington County, Florida. The Washington County School Board, Chipley, Florida.

1991 Washington: Florida’s Twelfth County. Rose Printing Company, Tallahassee.

Census Online 2006a Index to 1830 Federal Census. Electronic document, http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub /usgenweb/fl/washington/census/1830indx.txt, accessed January, 2006.

2006b Index to 1840 Federal Census. Electronic document http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub /usgenweb/fl/washington/census/1840indx.txt, accessed January, 2006.

2006c 1850 Federal Census. Electronic document. http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb /fl/washington/census/1850a.txt, accessed January, 2006.

2006d 1859 Federal Census – Slave Schedule. Electronic document. http://ftp.rootsweb. com/pub/usgenweb/fl/washington/census/1850/slave.txt, accessed January, 2006.

2006e 1860 Federal Census. Electronic document. http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb /fl/washington/census/1860a.txt, accessed January, 2006.

2006f 1860 Federal Census – Agricultural Schedule. Electronic document. http://ftp. roots web.com/pub/usgenweb/fl/washington/census/1860agri.txt, accessed January, 2006.

2006g 1845 Florida State Census. Electronic document. http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb /fl/washington/census/1860a.txt, accessed January, 2006.

Chance, Marsha A. 1977 Niceville-Valparaiso and West Okaloosa Survey. Okaloosa County Survey Number 33. Letter on file, Florida Division of Historic Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

208 Cockrell, Wilburn A. and L. Ross Morrell. 2005 Archaeological Survey of Five Bridge Sites: Sand Hill Lakes Mitigation Bank (Carter Tract), Washington County, Florida. Prepared for the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Division of Land Management and Acquisition, Havana, Florida. Prepared by Morrell and Associates.

Daniel, I. Randy, and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleoindian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, New York.

Dodd, Dorothy 1935 The Schooner Emperor: An Incident of the Illegal Salve Trade in Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly 13(3):117-128.

Duffee, Ernest M., Robert A. Baldwin, Douglas L. Lewis, and William B. Warmack 1984 Soil Survey of Bay County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Dunbar, James 1980 Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Emerald Springs Tract. Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee.

Evans, Oliver 1875 The Young Mill-Wright and Miller’s Guide. The Oliver Evans Press, Wallingford, Pennsylvania.

Fairbanks, Charles H. 1960 Additional Elliot’s Point Complex Sites. The Florida Anthropologist 12:95- 100.

1964 The Early Occupations of Northwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 1:27-30.

1965 Excavations at the Fort Walton Temple Mound. The Florida Anthropologist 18:239-264.

Fike, Richard A. 1987 The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Florida Division of Historical Resources 1995 More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

209 2004 Module Three: Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals. In Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operational Manual, prepared by the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Frelund, Glen, and William C. Johnson 1993 Geomorphological Studies. In Eglin Air Force Base Historic Preservation Plan. Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties Florida, edited by Prentice M. Thomas, Jr. and L. Janice Campbell. Report of Investigations 192. New World Research, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Fuller, Richard S. 1985 The Bear Point Phase of the Pensacola Variant: The Protohistoric Period in Southwest Alabama. The Florida Anthropologist 38:150-155.

1998 Indian Pottery and Cultural Chronology of the Mobile-Tensaw Basin and Alabama Coast. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 44:1-51.

Fuller, Richard S., and Ian W. Brown 1998 The Mound Island Project: An Archaeological Survey in the Middle Mobile- Tensaw Delta. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin 19, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Fuller, Richard S., and Noel R. Stowe 1982 A Proposed Typology for Late Shell Tempered Ceramics in the Mobile Bay/Mobile-Tensaw Delta Region. In Archaeology in Southwestern Alabama: A Collection of Papers, edited by Cailup Curren, pp. 45-93. Alabama-Tombigbee Regional Commission, Camden, Alabama.

Greer, Georgeanna H. 1981 American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. Schiffer Publishing Limited. Exton, Pennsylvania.

Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Prehistory: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.

Hardin, William 1990 Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Natural Areas Inventory, Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.

Hazen, Theodore R. 2006 A Cross Section of a Typical Oliver Evans Mill; Text and Drawing. Electronic document,http://www.angelfire.com/journal/millrestoration/section.html, accessed February 2006.

210 Jones, Calvin B., John Hann, and John Scarry 1991 San Pedro y San Pablo de Patale: A Seventeenth-Century Spanish Mission in Leon County, Florida. Florida Archaeology Number 5. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Jones, Olive, and Catherine Sullivan 1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service, Ottawa, Canada.

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kendrick, Grace 1966 The Antique Bottle Collector, Third Edition. Western Printing and Publishing, Nevada.

Knight, Vernon J., Jr. 1984 Late Prehistoric Adaptation in the Mobile Bay Region. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 198-215. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Knudsen, Gary D. 1979 Partial Cultural Resource Inventory of Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Southeastern Conservation Archaeology Center Florida State University, Archaeological Research Reports 7. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Kohler, Timothy 1978 The Social and Chronological Dimensions of Village Occupation at a North Florida Weeden Island Period Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Lazarus, William C. 1958 A Poverty Point Complex in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 11:23-32.

1961 Ten Middens on the Naval Live Oaks Reservation. The Florida Anthropologist 14:49-64.

MacMahon, Darcie A. 1991 Archaeological Collections Management at Adams National Historic Site, Massachusetts. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

211 McAllister, Lisa S., and John L. Michel 1993 Collecting Yellow Ware: An Identification and Value Guide. Schroeder Publishing Company, Paducah, Kentucky.

McGuinn, William F., and Bruce S. Bazelon 2001 American Military Button Makers and Dealers; Their Backmarks and Dates. Bookcrafters, Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Mikell, Gregory A. 1992 The Fort Walton Mississippian Variant on the Northwest Florida Gulf Coast. Southeastern Archaeology 11(1): 51-65.

1993a The Little’s Bayou West Site: Evidence of the Late Weeden Island-Fort Walton Transition in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:12-19.

1993b A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington Correctional Institution, Washington County, Florida. Prepared for W.M. Bishop Engineers, Inc., and the Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee.

1994a 8WL38, A Protohistoric Village Site on Choctawhatchee Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 47:233-268.

1994b A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington Correctional Institution McDaniel Lake Addition, Washington County, Florida. Prepared for W.M. Bishop Engineers, Inc. and the Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee.

1995a The Bell and Brooks Street Sites: Fort Walton Village Sites on Choctawhatchee Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 48:97-119.

1995b Choctawhatchee Bay Fort Walton, the West Side Story. The Florida Anthropologist 48:120-132.

1999 Late Archaic Estuarine Adaptation in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola, Florida.

2000 A Cultural Resources Survey of Wright’s Creek Park, A Preservation 2000 Project in Holmes County, Florida. Prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Pensacola, Florida.

2001a A Cultural Resources Survey of the Econfina Creek Water Area, Bay Jackson, and Washington Counties, Florida. Prepared for the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana, Florida. Prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Pensacola, Florida.

212 2001b Recent Data Concerning Late Archaic Period Estuarine Adaptation on the Northern Gulf Coast of Florida. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Mikell, Gregory A., Janice L. Campbell, and Prentice M. Thomas 1989 Archaeological Site Recording and Testing at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Report of Investigations 183. New World Research, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Mikell, Greg A., Lisa N. Lamb, and Carroll B. Butler 2003 Archaeological Site Testing and Evaluation of Eleven Selected Sites (8OK149, 8OK900, 8OK1042, 8OK1673, 8SR114, 8SR1436, 8WL134, 8WL357, 8WL387, 8WL1008, and 8WL1648) within Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Prepared for Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, New York. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa, Florida.

Mikell, Gregory A., and Brian Shoemaker 2002 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Choctawhatchee River Water Management Area, North of State Road 20 in Holmes, Walton, and Washington Counties, Florida. Prepared for the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa, Florida.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management Bulletin 3:51-63.

1974 Life in a 9th Century Household, A Weeden Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola River, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management Bulletin 4:1-44.

1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Milanich, Jerald T., A. Cordell, V. Knight, Jr., T. Kohler, and B. Sigler-Lavelle 1984 McKeithen Weeden Island, the Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, New York.

Miller, James J. 1998 Environmental History of Northeast Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

213

Moore, Clarence B. 1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Part 1. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:42-97.

1918 The Northwest Florida Coast Revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 16:513-597.

Noël Hume, Ivor 1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) 1997 Exploring District Lands, July 1997 Reprint. District Headquarters, Havana, Florida. 1998 Choctawhatchee River WMA Infrared Satellite Imagery. District Headquarters, Havana, Florida.

Orser, Charles E., Jr., Annette M. Nekola, and James L. Roark 1987 Exploring The Rustic Life, Volume II. National Park Service Archeological Services, Atlanta.

Percy, George W. 1974 A Review of the Evidence for Prehistoric Indian Use of Animals in Northwest Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management Bulletin 4:65-93.

Percy, George W., and David Brose 1974 Weeden Island Ecology, Subsistence, and Village Life in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Phelps, David S. 1965 The Norwood Series of Fiber-tempered Ceramics. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 2:65-69.

Phillips, John C. 1995 A Model of Prehistoric Site Locations on Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida. Manuscript on file at the University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, Pensacola.

Phillips, John C. and William J. Anderson 2000 Archaeological Survey of Walton County, Florida. Report of Investigations 84. University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, Pensacola.

214 Price Cynthia R. 1979 19th Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Monograph Series 1. Southwest Missouri State University Center for Archaeological Research.

Puri, Henry S., and Robert O. Vernon 1964 Summary of the Geology of Florida and Guidebook to the Classic Exposures. Special Publication 5. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Scarry, John 1990 Beyond the Apalachee Province: Assessing the Evidence for Early European- Indian Contact in West Florida. In Columbian Consequences, Volume 2, Archaeological and Historic Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, edited by David H. Thomas, pp. 93-105. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Schmidt, Walter 1978 Environmental Geology Map Series. Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series. Tallahassee, Florida. 1997 Geomorphology and Physiography of Florida. In The Geology of Florida, edited by Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 1-12. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee.

Schmidt, Walter, and Murlene Wiggs Clark 1980 Geology of Bay County, Florida. Bulletin 57. Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee.

Sears, William H. 1954 The Sociopolitical Organization of Pre-Columbian Cultures on the Gulf Coastal Plain. American Anthropologist 56:339-346.

1956 Excavations at Kolomoki, Final Report. Series in Anthropology 5. University of Georgia, Athens.

1962 Hopewellian Affiliations of Certain Sites on the Gulf Coast of Florida. American Antiquity 9:25-73.

1977 Prehistoric Culture Areas and Culture Change on the Gulf Coastal Plain. In For The Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles C. Cleland, pp. 168-185. Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Paper 61. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Smith, Hale G. 1965 Archaeological Excavations at Santa Rosa Pensacola. Notes in Anthropology 10. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

215 South, Stanley A. 1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historic Archaeology. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 6:71-116. 1977 Method and Theory in Historic Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stowe, Noel R. 1985 The Pensacola Variant and Bottle Creek. The Florida Anthropologist 38:144- 149.

Struever, Stuart 1972 The Hopewellian Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. In Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions, edited by Mark Leone. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Swindell, David E., Herbert J. Spillan, and Mildred L. Fryman 1979 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Naval Coastal Systems Center, Bay County, Florida. Manuscript no. 254 on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Tebeau, Charlton W. 1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

Tennis, Mel, Jr. 1960 Florida’s Fishing Ranch. Florida Wildlife Magazine, April 1960 Issue. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Tesar, Louis D. 1965 An Archaeological Survey of the West Peninsula of St. Andrews Bay (Part 1), Bay County Florida. Manuscript no. 253 on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Report: An Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida. Florida Department of Historic Resources, Miscellaneous Project Report Series 49.

Thomas, Prentice, and Janice Campbell 1985 The Deptford to Santa Rosa/Swift Creek Transition in the Florida Panhandle. The Florida Anthropologist 38:110-119.

Thomas, Prentice, and Janice Campbell (editors) 1993 Eglin Air Force Base Historic Preservation Plan. Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties Florida. Report of Investigations 192. New World Research, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

216 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) n.d. General Soil Map and Index to Map Sheets for Washington County, Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

U. S. Department of the Interior 1998 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, D.C.

Waggoner, Gary S. 1975 Southeastern Evergreen and Oak-Pine Region. Eastern Deciduous Forest, National Park Service History Theme Studies Number 1. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Walker, S. T. 1885 Mounds and Shell Heaps on the West Coast of Florida. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institute for 1883.

Waller, Benjamin, and James Dunbar 1977 Distribution of Paleoindian Sites in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30(2):79-80.

Walthall, John A., and Ned J. Jenkins 1976 The Gulf Formational Stage in Prehistory. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 19.

West, George M. 1922 St. Andrews, Florida: Historical Notes Upon St. Andrews and St. Andrews Bay with Maps and a portrait of Governor Clark and an Appendix Containing the Official Record of the Vessels Employed on the Blockading Fleet, of St. Andrews Bay. Rose Printing Company, Tallahassee.

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R., and R.B. Woodbury 1942 A Chronological Outline for the Northwest Florida Coast. American Antiquity 7:232-254.

Williams, John Lee 1827 A View of West Florida (1976 reprint of the 1827 edition). The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

217 Womack, Marlene 1994 Along the Bay, a Pictorial History of Bay County. Pictorial Heritage Publishing Company, Norfolk, Virginia.

1998 The Bay Country. New Hope Press, Apalachicola, Florida.

2000a The Atlanta and St. Andrew Bay Railway Co. Had Trouble Connecting. Electronic document, http://www.newsherald.com/archive/local00/lh011600.htm, accessed July 27, 2004.

2000b Streets Took Names From Explorers, Doctors and Writers. Electronic document, www.newsherald.com/articles/2000/03/19/lo031900f.htm, accessed July 27, 2004.

218

APPENDIX

FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FORMS